wives. An 1885 statute governing appeals from the territorial court reduced the possibility of such appeals. In Snow v. United States (1886), the Court rejected a polygamy appeal on the grounds that the statute granted jurisdiction in criminal appeals only if the validity, existence, or jurisdiction of the territorial courts was called into question. The statute did not preclude jurisdiction to hear appeals from denials of habeas corpus by the territorial courts. In Ex parte Snow (1887), the Court for the first time granted relief to a polygamy defendant, holding that the crime was a continuing offense, and thus the prosecutor could not increase the number of counts in the indictment by charging the same conduct over different time periods. The Court also heard a few non-polygamy territorial appeals. In Smith v. United States (1876), the Court for the first time dismissed an appeal pursuant to the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. In Wilkerson v. Utah (1879), the Court held that execution by firing squad was not cruel and unusual punishment. In Ex parte Reggel (1885), the Court held that the territorial extradition statute—referring to "treason, felony, or other crime"—included misdemeanors. Original habeas Federal confinement The Waite Court heard twenty-four original habeas petitions in criminal matters. Many of these rulings held that the original habeas jurisdiction did not extend to the type of case presented. The general rule, articulated in several cases, was that there could be no post-conviction original habeas jurisdiction unless the court below was totally without jurisdiction (for example, if the criminal statute were unconstitutional). Thus, in several cases, the Court found the alleged error too insubstantial to consider via original habeas. In Ex parte Parks (1876), the Court held that it had no original habeas jurisdiction to free a defendant convicted in a United States district court, even though no appeal was possible from the district court to the circuit court, and even though the petitioner alleged that the district court had been entirely without jurisdiction to try the offense charged. Similarly, in Ex parte Rowland (1881), the Court held that it had no original habeas jurisdiction to examine a contempt of court conviction arising from the disregard of a writ of mandamus. And, in Ex parte Bigelow (1885), the Court held that there could be no review of a double jeopardy determination of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. In Ex parte Harding (1887), the