History, 1838–1856, volume F-1 [1 May 1844–8 August 1844]

  • Source Note
  • Historical Introduction
Page 65
image
<​May 30​> as agent, for costs of suit.
Afterwards another petition for another writ of Habeas Corpus was presented, and the writ issued and tried; I copy the minutes from the Municipal docket:—
“State of Illinois) Municipal Court
City of ) vs. on Habeas Corpus.
“May 30th. 1844, came , and upon the reading and filing the petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus to be directed to one to have forthwith before the Municipal Court the body of the said upon said writ. Said writ was granted by the Court in accordance with the prayer of the petitioner.
“The writ of Habeas Corpus was served instanter by the in Court, and petitioner present, which writ, with the ’s return thereon, is on file in the Clerk’s office. [HC 6:420]
“The foregoing petition of <​said​> , together with a certified copy of the warrant, by virtue of which the said held the said in custody, are on file in the Clerk’s office.
“Present, Joseph Smith, Mayor and Chief Justice, and , , , , and , Aldermen, Associate Justices.
was called by the court to answer in the case, who said he had a writ from , and should consider his prisoner until he was compelled to give him up. Wanted an adjournment.
“The Court informed that was their prisoner.
and , counsel for , objected to an adjournment, as there had been two weeks adjournment for the government to procure witnesses in another suit which had closed, arising out of the same case, and which had been abandoned by the prosecuting party.
appeared before the Court and said: ‘I stand here as an Agent for the government to act in the case of in any State where he may be found, and if we are to go into an investigation on the merits of the case, and go behind the writ, I must have time to send to for witnesses, and I am instructed to consult with Esq., of , and Mr Mc Pherson of .
“The Marshal, , presented the prisoner for trial.
“The Court ordered the to take charge of the prisoner, and have him forthcoming from time to time for trial.
asked for an adjournment until afternoon.
said if they want to go into the merits of the case, we will give them any time; but we propose to dispense with the merits, and move a discharge on the insufficiency of the papers. has no legal authority to arrest the prisoner, and read from page 51, Revised Statutes of , Sec 399.
said he could show the law different, and asked for one weeks adjournment.
“One o’clock P. M., Court adjourned till after dinner to hear the pleas.
“Three o’clock P. M. Court sat, the same as in the morning.
and , counsel for , read and filed their plea, moving the Court that said be discharged, and suffered to go at large. [p. 65]
May 30 as agent, for costs of suit.
Afterwards another petition for another writ of Habeas Corpus was presented, and the writ issued and tried; I copy the minutes from the Municipal docket:—
“State of Illinois) Municipal Court
City of ) vs. on Habeas Corpus.
“May 30th. 1844, came , and upon the reading and filing the petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus to be directed to one to have forthwith before the Municipal Court the body of the said upon said writ. Said writ was granted by the Court in accordance with the prayer of the petitioner.
“The writ of Habeas Corpus was served instanter by the in Court, and petitioner present, which writ, with the ’s return thereon, is on file in the Clerk’s office. [HC 6:420]
“The foregoing petition of said , together with a certified copy of the warrant, by virtue of which the said held the said in custody, are on file in the Clerk’s office.
“Present, Joseph Smith, Mayor and Chief Justice, and , , , , and , Aldermen, Associate Justices.
was called by the court to answer in the case, who said he had a writ from , and should consider his prisoner until he was compelled to give him up. Wanted an adjournment.
“The Court informed that was their prisoner.
and , counsel for , objected to an adjournment, as there had been two weeks adjournment for the government to procure witnesses in another suit which had closed, arising out of the same case, and which had been abandoned by the prosecuting party.
appeared before the Court and said: ‘I stand here as an Agent for the government to act in the case of in any State where he may be found, and if we are to go into an investigation on the merits of the case, and go behind the writ, I must have time to send to for witnesses, and I am instructed to consult with Esq., of , and Mr Mc Pherson of .
“The Marshal, , presented the prisoner for trial.
“The Court ordered the to take charge of the prisoner, and have him forthcoming from time to time for trial.
asked for an adjournment until afternoon.
said if they want to go into the merits of the case, we will give them any time; but we propose to dispense with the merits, and move a discharge on the insufficiency of the papers. has no legal authority to arrest the prisoner, and read from page 51, Revised Statutes of , Sec 399.
said he could show the law different, and asked for one weeks adjournment.
“One o’clock P. M., Court adjourned till after dinner to hear the pleas.
“Three o’clock P. M. Court sat, the same as in the morning.
and , counsel for , read and filed their plea, moving the Court that said be discharged, and suffered to go at large. [p. 65]
Page 65