Warren E. Talcott, Jr. v. George A. Reed, Lt. Col., Inf., Commanding Officer, Los Angeles Recruiting Main Station, United States Army

We have before us, on a consolidated record and briefs, an appeal from each of two judgments which were rendered by different judges of the same district court. :

The first judgment was in case number 14208, rendered on the 25th of September, 1958, by the Honorable Dave W. Ling and the second judgment was in case number 14218, rendered by the Honorable Harry C. Westover.

Each of the judgments constitutes a denial of a petition filed by appellant-petitioner Warren E. Talcott, Jr., by relation of his mother in which petitioner seeks the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus and through the writ his release from commanding officers of the Army of the United States.

Instead of the., writ issuing in either case, show cause orders were issued and the hearings were.,on the show cause orders and the usual responsive pleadings, and the appeals are presented to us as though the writ had issued in each ease and had been discharged.

Petitioner (born October 2, 1925) registered with a Los Angeles local board under the Selective. Service System, now the Universal Military Training and Service Act, 62 Stat. 604 , Title 50 U.S. C.A.Appendix § 451 et seq., and his file, upon its face, shows…

(dissenting).

Determinations of two able United States District Judges in two different civil cases are -reversed and determinations of an administrative board are set aside by the opinion of this Court.

I.

As to the first case, the question whether the original IV-F classification was improperly' granted is immaterial. The statute provides “that persons who are or may be deferred under the provisions of this section shall remain liable for training and service” until 35 years of age. Besides, if it were material, a District Judge recited in relation, to the eardrum, “there was evidence” before the local board “to support its classification of petitioner as IV-F on January 23, 1950.” Talcott accepted the benefits of this IV-F classification and did not appeal, and was thereby legally deferred under the provisions of the section until reclassified.

II.

As to the second case, there was no ■“new ground” presented. The second trial judge refused to hear evidence that the board members had not considered the answer of petitioner, “I feel that the condition of my eardrum should be clearly established.” If this is supposed to be competent because it calls the attention of the board…

217 F.2d 360 Warren E. TALCOTT, Jr., Appellant, v. George A. REED, Lt. Col., Inf., Commanding Officer, Los Angeles Recruiting Main Station, United States Army, Appellee. No. 14218. No. 14208. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. October 23, 1954. J. B. Tietz, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant. Laughlin E. Waters, U. S. Atty., Max F. Deutz, Glendale, Cal., Arline Martin, Manley J. Bowler, Asst. U. S. Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee. Before STEPHENS, FEE and CHAMBERS, Circuit Judges. STEPHENS, Circuit Judge. 1 We have before us, on a consolidated record and briefs, an appeal from each of two judgments which were rendered by different judges of the same district court. 2 The first judgment was in case number 14208, rendered on the 25th of September, 1953, by the Honorable Dave W. Ling and the second judgment was in case number 14218, rendered by the Honorable Harry C. Westover. 3 Each of the judgments constitutes a denial of a petition filed by appellant-petitioner Warren E. Talcott, Jr., by relation of his mother in which petitioner seeks the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus and through the writ his release from commanding officers of the Army of the United…