
    (No. 5504.
    November 1, 1929.)
    In re BARLOW.
    [282 Pac. 380.]
    Wolfe & Neilson and Clark, Richards & Bowen, for Petitioner.
   WM. E. LEE, J. —

The supreme court having jurisdiction to review on appeal decisions of the district courts in habeas corpus proceedings (In re Jennings, 46 Ida. 142, 267 Pac. 227) will not exercise its power (Const., art. 5, sec. 9; C. S., sec. 9275) to grant an original writ of habeas corpus except in extraordinary eases. (In re Burnette, 73 Kan. 609, 85 Pac. 575; Ex parte Shaw, 7 Ohio St. 81, 70 Am. Dec. 55; Ex parte Shean, 25 Ohio St. 440; State v. Wolfer, 127 Minn. 102, 148 N. W. 896, L. R. A. 1915B, 95; Ex parte Lynn, 19 Tex. App. 120; Ex parte Japan, 36 Tex. Crim. 48, 38 S. W. 43; Ex parte Patterson, 42 Tex. Crim. 256, 58 S. W. 1011, 51 L. R. A. 654; Ex parte Lambert, 37 Tex. Crim. 435, 36 S. W. 81; Ex parte Ellis, 11 Cal. 223; Ex parte Nabors, 33 N. M. 324, 267 Pac. 58; People v. Adams, 83 Colo. 321, 264 Pac. 1090; Commonwealth v. Curry, 285 Pa. 289, 132 Atl. 370; Ex parte Mulholland, 13 Cal. App. 734, 110 Pac. 585; 13 Cal. Jur., “Habeas Corpus,” sec. 37; 29 C. J. 141.) Application has not been made to the district court of the county and no sufficient reason is assigned for first invoking the jurisdiction of the supreme court. ‘

The petition is accordingly denied.

Budge, C. J., and Givens, T. Bailey Lee and Varian, JJ., concur.  