Opinion of the Court. the statute itself is unconstitutional. We do not deem it necessary to determine whether the action is maintainable as originally commenced. As it appeared upon the trial, and is presented to us upon appeal, no effectual judgment can be rendered in it. The acts sought to be restrained have been consummated, and from a project to incorporate a village, the village has become incorporated. The defendants are not necessary or proper parties to the action upon the facts disclosed at the trial. The village itself, or the trustees who are now exercising the franchise, are the necessary parties to the action, and an injunction restraining the defendants would have no practical effect upon the corporation. We do not deem it proper, therefore, to express an opinion upon the points presented, involving the validity of the statute or the regularity of the proceedings under it, for the reason that a decision could not be made effectual by a judgment." People v. Clark, 70 N. Y. 518. In the case at bar, the whole object of the bill was to secure a right to vote at the election, to be held, as the bill alleged, on the third Tuesday of August, 1895, of delegates to the constitutional convention of South Carolina. Before this appeal was taken by the plaintiff from the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals dismissing his bill, that date had passed; and, before the entry of the appeal in this court, the convention had assembled, pursuant to the statute of South Carolina of 1894, by which the convention had been called. 21 Statutes of South Carolina, pp. 802, 803. The election of the delegates and the assembling of the convention are public matters, to be taken notice of by the court, without formal plea or proof. The lower courts of the United States, and this court, on appeal from their decisions, take judicial notice of the constitution and public laws of each State of the Union. Owings v. Hull, 9 Pet. 607, 625; Lamar v. Micou, 112 U. S. 452, 474, and 114 U. S. 218, 223; Hanley v. Donoghue, 116 U. S. 1, 6; Fourth National Bank v. Francklyn, 120 U. S. 747, 751; Gormley v. Bunyan, 138 U. S. 623; Martin v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 151 U. S. 673, 678. Taking judicial notice of the constitution and laws of the State, this court must take judicial VOL. CLIX-42 Statement of the Case. notice of the days of public general elections of members of the legislature, or of a convention to revise the fundamental law of the State, as well as of the times of the commencement of the sitting of those bodies, and of the dates when their acts take effect. 1 Greenl. Ev. § 6; Brown v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37, 42; Gardner v. Collector, 6 Wall. 499; Hoyt v. Russell, 117 U. S. 401; Jones v. United States, 137 U. S. 202, 216. It is obvious, therefore, that, even if the bill could properly be held to present a case within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, no relief within the scope of the bill could now be granted. Appeal dismissed, without costs to either party. GILLIS v. STINCHFIELD. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. No. 661. Submitted November 11, 1895. Decided November 25, 1895. The decision by the highest court of a State that the grantor of a portion of the ground of a mining claim is estopped, on general principles of law and by the statutes of the State, from claiming priority of title to a space of vein-intersection within the granted premises, by reason of his locating the portion retained by himself before a location of the granted portion by his grantee, presents no Federal question. THIS was an action brought by Stinchfield against Gillis and others in the Superior Court of Tuolumne County, California, to recover the value of certain gold alleged to have been taken by defendants from the mining claim of plaintiff. Gillis, for many years, had held and asserted ownership of a mining claim known as the Carrington, and had sold and conveyed by deed of grant, bargain and sale a portion of the ground to Stinchfield. Immediately after executing the deed to Stinchfield, Gillis located that portion of the claim which he retained, and denominated his location the Carrington, and afterwards Stinchfield located the ground he had purchased and denominated it the Pine Tree claim. Thereafter Gillis, Opinion of the Court. or those under him, entered upon the ground he had sold to Stinchfield at the intersection of two veins, one of which had its apex in the portion of the original claim which Gillis had retained, and the other had its apex in the ground sold to Stinchfield, and dug out and appropriated a large amount of gold, the space of vein-intersection from which the gold was taken being entirely in Stinchfield's ground. The trial court gave judgment for Stinchfield, and Gillis appealed to the Supreme Court of California, by which the judgment of the lower court was affirmed. 40 Pac. Rep. 98. The Supreme Court was of opinion that Gillis was estopped, under the law of California, by his deed to Stinchfield, from claiming priority of title to the space of vein-intersection by reason of the location which he had made after the execution of the deed, but before the location by Stinchfield of the ground conveyed to him. The same conclusion had been reached and announced on a former appeal. 96 Cal. 33. A writ of error from this court having been allowed, a motion to dismiss was submitted. Mr. M. A. Wheaton, Mr. T. M. Kalloch, and Mr. F. J. Kierce for the motion. Mr. J. C. Campbell, Mr. F. W. Street, and Mr. J. F. Rooney opposing. THE CHIEF JUSTICE: Neither in the pleadings nor in the proceedings during the trial, nor in the specifications of error below, was any Federal question specifically raised, nor was any right, title, privilege, or immunity of a Federal nature set up or claimed. Sayward v. Denny, 158 U. S. 180. It is, however, contended that the record shows that a Federal question arose in the case, as considered by both the Superior and the Supreme Courts, and was decided adversely to plaintiffs in error, namely, that Gillis had the right to follow what was known as the Rice vein, which had its apex on the Carrington mine, upon its dip, beneath the surface of the Pine Tree mine, and to appropriate to his own use the gold found Statement of the Case. in that vein at the point of its intersection with the so-called West vein, which had its apex on the Pine Tree mine, because the Carrington mine was the older or prior location; and that this could only be determined by an application of sections 2322 and 2336 of the Revised Statutes. But the decision of the Supreme Court was clearly based upon the estoppel deemed by that court to operate against plaintiffs in error upon general principles of law and the statute of California in respect of such a conveyance as that to Stinchfield, irrespective of any Federal question. And this was an independent ground broad enough to maintain the judgment. The writ of error must, therefore, be dismissed. Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U. S. 361; Rutland Railroad Co. v. Central Vermont Railroad Co., 159 U. S. 630. Writ of error dismissed. LAMBERT v. BARRETT. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY. UNITED STATES FOR No. 771. Submitted November 11, 1895. - Decided November 18, 1895. The several questions raised by the counsel for the petitioner are matters for the determination of the courts of the State, and their determination there adversely to the petitioner involves no denial of due process of law, or the infraction of any provision of the Constitution of the United States. The administration of justice ought not to be interfered with on mere pre texts. THIS is an appeal from a final order of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey, denying the petition of Theodore Lambert for a writ of habeas corpus. It appeared from the petition that Lambert was convicted by the verdict of a jury, June 15, 1894, of the murder of William Kairer, in the court of oyer and terminer and general jail delivery of Camden County, New Jersey, and sentenced, October 13, to be hanged on December 13, 1894; that on the Statement of the Case. fourth of December the governor of New Jersey granted a reprieve, suspending the execution of the sentence until January 3, 1895, and on December 22, 1894, issued a death warrant for the execution of Lambert on said third of January; that on December 29, 1894, application was made to one of the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Third Circuit for a writ of habeas corpus, which was denied, and on January 2 an appeal was taken to this court; that on the same day a citation was issued to Barrett, sheriff of the county of Camden, in whose custody petitioner was, together with an order by one of the justices of this court, staying the execution of Lambert "until the further order of this court." It also appeared that the appeal was heard in this court March 25, 1895, and the appeal thereafter dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and a mandate to that effect was duly issued, but that it was not filed nor any entry of final judgment made in the Circuit Court. Petitioner further averred that on May 28, 1895, the governor issued another death warrant to the sheriff of Camden County, directing the execution of the death sentence on the 27th of June following; that on June 5, 1895, a petition was presented to the Supreme Court of New Jersey for a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of the detention of Lambert, and that the same was granted and made returnable on June 10, and after hearing argument the court held that Lambert was lawfully in custody; that subsequently application was made to the Chancellor of the State for a writ of error to remove the last mentioned judgment to the Court of Errors and Appeals, which was refused. Petitioner charged that under section 766 of the Revised Statutes any proceedings to carry out the judgment against him by or under the authority of the State of New Jersey before final judgment was entered in the Circuit Court were null and void, and that as such judgment had not been entered, the sheriff restrained him of his liberty for the purpose of carrying the death warrant into execution in violation of that statute of the United States; that the governor had no prerogative, right, or authority under or by virtue of the laws of New Jersey to grant the reprieve or issue the death war |