Moreover, the petitioner requests that a full evidentiary hearing be held as to the questions presented for review in this habeas corpus petition. It is well settled that the function of a habeas corpus proceeding is to determine the constitutionality of the prisoner's present custody. U.S. ex rel. Lopinson v. Bookbinder, 237 F. Supp. 180 (E.D.Pa. 1964). The court in U.S. ex rel. Dickerson v. Rundle, 238 F. Supp. 218 (E.D.Pa. 1965), aff'd 363 F.2d 126 (3d Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 916, 87 S.Ct. 880, 17 L.Ed.2d 790 (1967), stated as the ultimate purpose of habeas corpus:
Relator's remaining contentions (items 4 a-e, see p. 415 supra) are purely questions of state law without constitutional significance and hence, are not cognizable in this court on a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Greer v. Pate, supra; Reese v. Cardwell, 410 F.2d 1125 (6th Cir. 1969); Williams v. Peyton, 297 F. Supp. 857 (W.D.Va. 1969); United States ex rel. Jablonsky v. Follette, 291 F. Supp. 828 (S.D.N.Y. 1968); United States ex rel. Lopinson v. Bookbinder, 237 F. Supp. 180 (E.D.Pa. 1964). Nor is the cumulative effect of these alleged errors so conspicuously prejudicial as to amount to a denial of a fair trial.