Ex rel. Soto

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this case seems to be based upon Title III, c. 54, s. 1, of the Code (1921; 5 V.I.C. § 1301).

The theory upon which the petitioners’ counsel based his elaborate and very able argument is that his clients have been unlawfully “restrained” of their liberty. His view being that the mandate of the appellate court (see Soto v. United States, 1 V. I. 536) entitled the appellants to a speedy trial, which they have been denied.

While the case was argued without that part of the record which refers to the mandate, it may be stated that said mandate was…