No image available

Introduction to United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A and United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B

 
United States v. Jeremiah Smith
United States Criminal Court, Washington DC, Oct. 1844
 
United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A
Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illinois, Municipal Court, 30 May 1844
 
United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B
Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illinois, Municipal Court, 30 May 1844
 
Historical Introduction
In May 1844, the municipal court of , Illinois—over which JS presided as chief justice—granted two writs of to , a miller from Wapello County, Iowa Territory, who had been indicted for defrauding the federal government. The resulting proceedings demonstrated JS’s commitment to making the municipal court’s habeas corpus provisions available to all who believed that they had been unlawfully detained, whether they were being held by federal, state, or city authorities.
 
United States v. Jeremiah Smith
Frustrated by the reluctance of government officials to pay him for building two gristmills for the Sauk and Meskwaki nations (designated by Euro-Americans as the Sac and Fox Indians), visited in March 1843 to lobby for his claim. While there, Smith learned that the government had appropriated $4,000 for another individual named Jeremiah Smith, a younger man also from . On 28 March, the elder Jeremiah Smith allegedly claimed the money from the United States Treasury for himself. Following this, the elder Jeremiah Smith returned to the West and visited for “several days” in summer 1843 before continuing on to Iowa.
Meanwhile, the younger Jeremiah Smith began inquiring regarding the status of the appropriation, leading Charles B. Penrose, the solicitor of the Treasury Department, to initiate efforts to prosecute the elder for fraud. A federal grand jury for the United States Criminal Court in indicted the elder Jeremiah Smith during its October 1843 term “for obtaining money . . . under false pretence.” Penrose directed federal law enforcement agents to work with Judge Charles Mason of the United States District Court for Des Moines County, First Judicial District of Iowa Territory, to secure Smith’s arrest and then convey him to Washington for trial. Mason cooperated by issuing a warrant for Smith, but after the fugitive was arrested and brought before the judge on 17 February 1844, Mason him due to the federal prosecutor’s failure “to establish the identity of Mr. Smith as the Jeremiah Smith named in the indictment.” This discharge did not function as an , meaning the agents could persist in their efforts to detain Smith without triggering the Constitution’s double jeopardy clause. Amid subsequent efforts to recapture Smith, he fled the area.
On 16 April 1844, Penrose commissioned , a former marshal from , “to proceed against him [] whenever he is found.” Penrose indicated that if Smith crossed state lines, Johnson should follow a federal statute that permitted him to obtain a warrant from a federal or state judge in the state or territory where Smith was found. Following the arrest, the judge would issue an order that authorized Smith’s conveyance to the nation’s capital for trial. Johnson, believing Smith had fled to , headed south to .
 
United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A
had actually gone east to , arriving by mid-April 1844 and lodging at the . At some point, he confided to JS that he expected “to be arrestd by the U.S. Marshal for getting money which was his due,” presumably referring to the money that he believed the government owed him for building the gristmills. In order to challenge the impending arrest, Smith decided to seek a writ of habeas corpus from the Nauvoo Municipal Court.
With the assistance of attorney , prepared a petition for habeas corpus to present to the municipal court, leaving a blank for the name of the arresting officer. The petition claimed that Smith’s detention was unlawful and that an authorized court had already investigated the charges and “honorably acquitted” him, although Judge Mason’s February 1844 discharge did not, in fact, constitute an acquittal. The petition requested the municipal court to investigate not only Smith’s detention but also the merits of the case. As mayor of the city and therefore chief justice of the municipal court, JS certified the petition, dating it 20 April. Five days later, JS instructed , clerk of the municipal court, “to make out a writ of Habeus Copus” for Smith. Richards complied, leaving blank spaces for the name of the arresting officer and the date.
However, no marshal appeared until mid-May, after learned that was in rather than . Following Penrose’s instructions, on 13 May Johnson worked with , Illinois, justice of the peace William Bennum of Appanoose, Illinois, which was northeast of Nauvoo, to issue a warrant for Smith. Bennum gave it to Constable James McCance, also of Appanoose, to serve. After learning of the warrant, Smith went into hiding.
On 16 May, McCance located and arrested . Smith completed his previously drafted habeas corpus petition by filling the blank with McCance’s name and revising the date. He then filed the petition with the municipal court. Likewise, , acting as clerk of the court, issued the writ of habeas corpus he had previously drafted, filling in the blanks. The writ instructed marshal to command McCance to bring Smith before the court and provide the grounds upon which he held him in custody. McCance complied with Greene’s command, bringing Smith before the municipal court the same day and writing in his return notation on the writ that he detained Smith by virtue of Bennum’s warrant. , as the complainant for Bennum’s warrant, was present along with his attorney , who motioned for an adjournment, requesting time to obtain material witnesses. The adjournment was granted.
JS and five associate justices reconvened midmorning on 30 May 1844. was represented by as well as , a , Iowa Territory, lawyer. The court called on to defend his complaint against Smith. Johnson declined to do so, arguing that the municipal court lacked habeas corpus jurisdiction over federal prisoners. In response, JS defended the municipal court’s habeas corpus powers and implied that Johnson’s language was an affront to ’s chartered rights. JS then discharged Jeremiah Smith on the grounds that Johnson “refused to prosecute his claim.” Johnson was also assessed the costs of the suit.
 
United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B
had not come to Illinois alone but was joined by , an physician who had been deputized with Johnson to pursue . On 30 May, Johnson acknowledged to the municipal court justices that, although he had claimed that he needed an adjournment in order to send for witnesses, in reality he sought the delay to give Hickok time to obtain another warrant for Smith. On 21 May, Hickok had appeared before federal judge in , Illinois, and presented to him a certified copy of the indictment. Pope issued a warrant for Smith to , the marshal for . On 25 May, Prentiss authorized Hickok to serve the warrant. Hickok arrived in four days later and attempted to arrest Smith on 29 May, although he was unable to because Smith was still in the custody of the municipal court. Smith’s attorneys prepared a petition for a new writ of habeas corpus but did not submit it to the court until 30 May, presumably after the court discharged him on the first writ.
This second petition for habeas corpus argued that ’s warrant was invalid, that was not authorized to serve it, and that the initial charge was motivated by “private pique malice & corruption.” In addition, the petition claimed that had “been twice acquitted & discharged” by authorized courts, referencing the February proceedings before the federal district court and the municipal court’s hearing held earlier on 30 May. , as clerk of the court, issued a printed writ of habeas corpus and filled in the information for Smith. city marshal then served a copy of the writ on Hickok in the courtroom. Hickok apparently declined to write a return notation explaining the grounds upon which he held Smith in custody, which was required by Nauvoo law, but the court permitted him to report this information orally.
Around midday on 30 May 1844, the court, with JS presiding, convened and called on to defend his claim on . was also present and participated in the subsequent discussion over whether the hearing should focus on procedural issues regarding ’s warrant and Hickok’s authority to serve it or whether the court could hold a trial “on the merits of the [federal government’s] case” against Smith. The court adjourned for lunch at one o’clock and reconvened two hours later to hear arguments from and as to why the court should discharge the prisoner. The attorneys also submitted to the court a certificate from the federal district court in attesting that it had discharged Smith in February 1844. Based on the previous proceedings and the court’s understanding of double jeopardy, the municipal court discharged Smith from arrest.
 
United States v. Jeremiah Smith (continued)
Despite JS’s defense of the municipal court’s habeas corpus powers, and remained unconvinced that the court’s discharge of disallowed ’s warrant or superseded their responsibility to deliver him to the judge. Johnson threatened to return to with federal dragoons in order to take Smith. Hickok evidently took a less confrontational approach and persuaded JS to permit him to serve Pope’s warrant and convey Smith to . Sometime after the second discharge on 30 May, JS had his clerk write a letter introducing Smith and to Pope. Hickok also requested a copy of the municipal court’s records for the case, prompting to work into the night of 30–31 May preparing the docket entries for the two habeas corpus proceedings and certified copies of the records.
and arrived in by 6 June 1844. , the attorney who represented Smith in , also made the journey, writing to JS that Smith expected to appear before on 7 June. However, it appears that the hearing was delayed until around 12 June. Although federal law empowered Pope to issue an order authorizing the immediate transport of Smith to to await his trial—which is what Penrose, the U.S. Treasury solicitor, expected Pope to do—the judge instead ordered Smith to enter into a $5,000 binding him to appear in the nation’s capital for the U.S. Criminal Court’s October 1844 term. Smith apparently did not comply with the conditions of the recognizance, and he was ultimately arrested and conveyed to Washington, where he appeared in the criminal court. The outcome of his trial remains unknown.
 
Calendar of Documents
This calendar lists all known documents created by or for the court, whether extant or not. It does not include versions of documents created for other purposes, though those versions may be listed in footnotes. In certain cases, especially in cases concerning unpaid debts, the originating document (promissory note, invoice, etc.) is listed here. Note that documents in the calendar are grouped with their originating court. Where a version of a document was subsequently filed with another court, that version is listed under both courts.
 
United States v. Jeremiah Smith
United States Criminal Court, Washington DC, Oct. 1844
 
United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A
Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illinois, Municipal Court, 30 May 1844
 
United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B
Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illinois, Municipal Court, 30 May 1844
 
Historical Introduction
In May 1844, the municipal court of , Illinois—over which JS presided as chief justice—granted two writs of to , a miller from Wapello County, Iowa Territory, who had been indicted for defrauding the federal government. The resulting proceedings demonstrated JS’s commitment to making the municipal court’s habeas corpus provisions available to all who believed that they had been unlawfully detained, whether they were being held by federal, state, or city authorities.
 
United States v. Jeremiah Smith
Frustrated by the reluctance of government officials to pay him for building two gristmills for the Sauk and Meskwaki nations (designated by Euro-Americans as the Sac and Fox Indians), visited in March 1843 to lobby for his claim. While there, Smith learned that the government had appropriated $4,000 for another individual named Jeremiah Smith, a younger man also from . On 28 March, the elder Jeremiah Smith allegedly claimed the money from the United States Treasury for himself. Following this, the elder Jeremiah Smith returned to the West and visited for “several days” in summer 1843 before continuing on to Iowa.
Meanwhile, the younger Jeremiah Smith began inquiring regarding the status of the appropriation, leading Charles B. Penrose, the solicitor of the Treasury Department, to initiate efforts to prosecute the elder for fraud. A federal grand jury for the United States Criminal Court in indicted the elder Jeremiah Smith during its October 1843 term “for obtaining money . . . under false pretence.” Penrose directed federal law enforcement agents to work with Judge Charles Mason of the United States District Court for Des Moines County, First Judicial District of Iowa Territory, to secure Smith’s arrest and then convey him to Washington for trial. Mason cooperated by issuing a warrant for Smith, but after the fugitive was arrested and brought before the judge on 17 February 1844, Mason him due to the federal prosecutor’s failure “to establish the identity of Mr. Smith as the Jeremiah Smith named in the indictment.” This discharge did not function as an , meaning the agents could persist in their efforts to detain Smith without triggering the Constitution’s double jeopardy clause. Amid subsequent efforts to recapture Smith, he fled the area.
On 16 April 1844, Penrose commissioned , a former marshal from , “to proceed against him [] whenever he is found.” Penrose indicated that if Smith crossed state lines, Johnson should follow a federal statute that permitted him to obtain a warrant from a federal or state judge in the state or territory where Smith was found. Following the arrest, the judge would issue an order that authorized Smith’s conveyance to the nation’s capital for trial. Johnson, believing Smith had fled to , headed south to .
 
United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A
had actually gone east to , arriving by mid-April 1844 and lodging at the . At some point, he confided to JS that he expected “to be arrestd by the U.S. Marshal for getting money which was his due,” presumably referring to the money that he believed the government owed him for building the gristmills. In order to challenge the impending arrest, Smith decided to seek a writ of habeas corpus from the Nauvoo Municipal Court.
With the assistance of attorney , prepared a petition for habeas corpus to present to the municipal court, leaving a blank for the name of the arresting officer. The petition claimed that Smith’s detention was unlawful and that an authorized court had already investigated the charges and “honorably acquitted” him, although Judge Mason’s February 1844 discharge did not, in fact, constitute an acquittal. The petition requested the municipal court to investigate not only Smith’s detention but also the merits of the case. As mayor of the city and therefore chief justice of the municipal court, JS certified the petition, dating it 20 April. Five days later, JS instructed , clerk of the municipal court, “to make out a writ of Habeus Copus” for Smith. Richards complied, leaving blank spaces for the name of the arresting officer and the date.
However, no marshal appeared until mid-May, after learned that was in rather than . Following Penrose’s instructions, on 13 May Johnson worked with , Illinois, justice of the peace William Bennum of Appanoose, Illinois, which was northeast of Nauvoo, to issue a warrant for Smith. Bennum gave it to Constable James McCance, also of Appanoose, to serve. After learning of the warrant, Smith went into hiding.
On 16 May, McCance located and arrested . Smith completed his previously drafted habeas corpus petition by filling the blank with McCance’s name and revising the date. He then filed the petition with the municipal court. Likewise, , acting as clerk of the court, issued the writ of habeas corpus he had previously drafted, filling in the blanks. The writ instructed marshal to command McCance to bring Smith before the court and provide the grounds upon which he held him in custody. McCance complied with Greene’s command, bringing Smith before the municipal court the same day and writing in his return notation on the writ that he detained Smith by virtue of Bennum’s warrant. , as the complainant for Bennum’s warrant, was present along with his attorney , who motioned for an adjournment, requesting time to obtain material witnesses. The adjournment was granted.
JS and five associate justices reconvened midmorning on 30 May 1844. was represented by as well as , a , Iowa Territory, lawyer. The court called on to defend his complaint against Smith. Johnson declined to do so, arguing that the municipal court lacked habeas corpus jurisdiction over federal prisoners. In response, JS defended the municipal court’s habeas corpus powers and implied that Johnson’s language was an affront to ’s chartered rights. JS then discharged Jeremiah Smith on the grounds that Johnson “refused to prosecute his claim.” Johnson was also assessed the costs of the suit.
 
United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B
had not come to Illinois alone but was joined by , an physician who had been deputized with Johnson to pursue . On 30 May, Johnson acknowledged to the municipal court justices that, although he had claimed that he needed an adjournment in order to send for witnesses, in reality he sought the delay to give Hickok time to obtain another warrant for Smith. On 21 May, Hickok had appeared before federal judge in , Illinois, and presented to him a certified copy of the indictment. Pope issued a warrant for Smith to , the marshal for . On 25 May, Prentiss authorized Hickok to serve the warrant. Hickok arrived in four days later and attempted to arrest Smith on 29 May, although he was unable to because Smith was still in the custody of the municipal court. Smith’s attorneys prepared a petition for a new writ of habeas corpus but did not submit it to the court until 30 May, presumably after the court discharged him on the first writ.
This second petition for habeas corpus argued that ’s warrant was invalid, that was not authorized to serve it, and that the initial charge was motivated by “private pique malice & corruption.” In addition, the petition claimed that had “been twice acquitted & discharged” by authorized courts, referencing the February proceedings before the federal district court and the municipal court’s hearing held earlier on 30 May. , as clerk of the court, issued a printed writ of habeas corpus and filled in the information for Smith. city marshal then served a copy of the writ on Hickok in the courtroom. Hickok apparently declined to write a return notation explaining the grounds upon which he held Smith in custody, which was required by Nauvoo law, but the court permitted him to report this information orally.
Around midday on 30 May 1844, the court, with JS presiding, convened and called on to defend his claim on . was also present and participated in the subsequent discussion over whether the hearing should focus on procedural issues regarding ’s warrant and Hickok’s authority to serve it or whether the court could hold a trial “on the merits of the [federal government’s] case” against Smith. The court adjourned for lunch at one o’clock and reconvened two hours later to hear arguments from and as to why the court should discharge the prisoner. The attorneys also submitted to the court a certificate from the federal district court in attesting that it had discharged Smith in February 1844. Based on the previous proceedings and the court’s understanding of double jeopardy, the municipal court discharged Smith from arrest.
 
United States v. Jeremiah Smith (continued)
Despite JS’s defense of the municipal court’s habeas corpus powers, and remained unconvinced that the court’s discharge of disallowed ’s warrant or superseded their responsibility to deliver him to the judge. Johnson threatened to return to with federal dragoons in order to take Smith. Hickok evidently took a less confrontational approach and persuaded JS to permit him to serve Pope’s warrant and convey Smith to . Sometime after the second discharge on 30 May, JS had his clerk write a letter introducing Smith and to Pope. Hickok also requested a copy of the municipal court’s records for the case, prompting to work into the night of 30–31 May preparing the docket entries for the two habeas corpus proceedings and certified copies of the records.
and arrived in by 6 June 1844. , the attorney who represented Smith in , also made the journey, writing to JS that Smith expected to appear before on 7 June. However, it appears that the hearing was delayed until around 12 June. Although federal law empowered Pope to issue an order authorizing the immediate transport of Smith to to await his trial—which is what Penrose, the U.S. Treasury solicitor, expected Pope to do—the judge instead ordered Smith to enter into a $5,000 binding him to appear in the nation’s capital for the U.S. Criminal Court’s October 1844 term. Smith apparently did not comply with the conditions of the recognizance, and he was ultimately arrested and conveyed to Washington, where he appeared in the criminal court. The outcome of his trial remains unknown.
 
Calendar of Documents
This calendar lists all known documents created by or for the court, whether extant or not. It does not include versions of documents created for other purposes, though those versions may be listed in footnotes. In certain cases, especially in cases concerning unpaid debts, the originating document (promissory note, invoice, etc.) is listed here. Note that documents in the calendar are grouped with their originating court. Where a version of a document was subsequently filed with another court, that version is listed under both courts.
 
United States v. Jeremiah Smith, United States Criminal Court, Washington DC
  • 1843 (1)
    • October (1)
      Ca. October 1843

      Indictment, Washington DC

      • Ca. Oct. 1843. Not extant.
      • Ca. 27 Jan. 1844. Not extant.
      • Ca. 16 Apr. 1844. Not extant.
      • Ca. May 1844. Not extant.
 
United States v. Jeremiah Smith, United States District Court for Des Moines Co., First Judicial District, Iowa Territory
  • 1843 (1)
  • 1844 (4)
    • February (2)
      Ca. Early February 1844

      Charles Mason, Warrant, for Jeremiah Smith, Burlington, Des Moines Co., Iowa Territory

      • Ca. Early Feb. 1844. Not extant.
      19 Feb. 1844

      Charles Mason, Warrant, for Jeremiah Smith, Burlington, Des Moines Co., Iowa Territory

      • 19 Feb. 1844. Not extant.
    • March (1)
      Ca. March 1844

      Charles Mason, Warrant, for Jeremiah Smith, Burlington, Des Moines Co., Iowa Territory

      • Ca. March 1844. Not extant.
    • May (1)
      21 May 1844

      John Dunlap, Certificate, Burlington, Des Moines Co., Iowa Territory

      • 21 May 1844. Not extant.
      • Ca. 30 May 1844; Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL; handwriting of William Clayton; docket and notations in handwriting of Willard Richards.
 
United States v. Jeremiah Smith, Appanoose, Hancock Co., Illinois, Justice of the Peace Court
  • 1844 (2)
    • May (2)
      13 May 1844

      Thomas B. Johnson, Complaint, before William Bennum, Appanoose, Hancock Co., IL

      • 13 May 1844. Not extant.
      13 May 1844

      William Bennum, Warrant, to All Sheriffs, Coroners, and Constables of Hancock Co., for Jeremiah Smith, Appanoose, Hancock Co., IL

      • 13 May 1844. Not extant.
      • 16 May 1844; Nauvoo, IL, Records; handwriting of George Stiles; certification in handwriting of Willard Richards with signature of James McCance; docket and notation in handwriting of Willard Richards.
 
United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A, Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illinois, Municipal Court
  • 1844 (11)
    • May (11)
      13 May 1844

      William Bennum, Warrant, Copy, to All Sheriffs, Coroners, and Constables of Hancock Co., for Jeremiah Smith, Appanoose, Hancock Co., IL

      • 16 May 1844; Nauvoo, IL, Records; handwriting of George Stiles; docket in handwriting of Willard Richards; notation in handwriting of Willard Richards with signature of James McCance.
      16 May 1844

      Jeremiah Smith, Petition, to Nauvoo Municipal Court, Nauvoo, Hancock Co., IL

      • 16 May 1844; Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL; handwriting of George Stiles; signature of Jeremiah Smith; certified by JS in handwriting of William W. Phelps; docket and notation in handwriting of Willard Richards.
      16 May 1844

      Willard Richards, Habeas Corpus, to Nauvoo City Marshal, Nauvoo, Hancock Co., IL

      • 16 May 1844; Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL; manuscript form in handwriting of Willard Richards with manuscript additions in handwriting of Willard Richards; docket and notation in handwriting of Willard Richards; notation in handwriting of John P. Greene; notation in handwriting of Willard Richards.
      • 16 May 1844; Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL; manuscript form in handwriting of Willard Richards with manuscript additions in handwriting of Willard Richards; docket and notation in handwriting of Willard Richards; notations in handwriting of Willard Richards with signatures of John P. Greene and James McCance; notation in handwriting of Willard Richards.
      16 May 1844

      Willard Richards, Summons, to Nauvoo City Marshal, for JS and Others, Nauvoo, Hancock Co., IL

      • 16 May 1844; Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL; handwriting of Willard Richards; docket in handwriting of Willard Richards; notation in handwriting of John P. Greene; notation in handwriting of Willard Richards.
      16 May 1844

      Minutes, Nauvoo, Hancock Co., IL

      • 16 May 1844; Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL; handwriting of Willard Richards; docket in handwriting of Willard Richards.
      18 May 1844

      JS as Mayor, Subpoena, for Jeremiah Smith Jr., Nauvoo, Hancock Co., IL

      • 18 May 1844; Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL; printed form with manuscript additions in handwriting of William W. Phelps; notation in handwriting of John P. Greene.
      Between 16 and 30 May 1844

      Charles B. Penrose, Note, Washington DC

      30 May 1844

      Minutes, Nauvoo, Hancock Co., IL

      • 30 May 1844; Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL and Nauvoo Mayor’s Court, Papers, CHL; handwriting of Willard Richards.
      30 May 1844

      Willard Richards, Execution, to Nauvoo City Marshal, Nauvoo, Hancock Co., IL

      • 30 May 1844; Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL; handwriting of Willard Richards; docket in handwriting of Willard Richards; endorsement in handwriting of John P. Greene.
      30 May 1844

      Willard Richards, Bill of Costs, Nauvoo, Hancock Co., IL

      • 30 May 1844; Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL; handwriting of Willard Richards; docket and notation in handwriting of Thomas B. Johnson.
      18–31 May 1844

      Docket Entry, Nauvoo, Hancock Co., IL

      • 18–31 May 1844; Nauvoo Municipal Court Docket Book, 97–99; handwriting of Willard Richards.
      • 31 May 1844. Not extant.
 
United States v. Jeremiah Smith, United States District Court for the District of Illinois, Springfield, Sangamon Co., Illinois
  • 1843 (1)
  • 1844 (3)
    • May (2)
      21 May 1844

      Luther Hickok, Complaint, before Nathaniel Pope, Springfield, Sangamon Co., IL

      21 May 1844

      Nathaniel Pope, Warrant, to U.S. Marshal for the District of IL, for Jeremiah Smith, Springfield, Sangamon Co., IL

    • June (1)
      Ca. 12 June 1844

      Jeremiah Smith, Recognizance, Springfield, Sangamon Co., IL

      • Ca. 12 June 1844. Not extant.
 
United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B, Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illinois, Municipal Court
  • 1844 (5)
    • May (5)
      21 May 1844

      Nathaniel Pope, Warrant, Copy, to U.S. Marshal for the District of IL, for Jeremiah Smith, Springfield, Sangamon Co., IL

      30 May 1844

      Jeremiah Smith, Petition, to Nauvoo Municipal Court, Nauvoo, Hancock Co., IL

      • 30 May 1844; Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL; unidentified handwriting; signature of Jeremiah Smith; docket and notation in handwriting of Willard Richards.
      30 May 1844

      Willard Richards, Habeas Corpus, to Nauvoo City Marshal, Nauvoo, Hancock Co., IL

      • 30 May 1844; Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL; printed form with manuscript additions in handwriting of Willard Richards; notation in handwriting of John P. Greene; notation in handwriting of Willard Richards.
      • Ca. 30 May 1844. Not extant.
      30 May 1844

      Henry T. Hugins and George Stiles on behalf of Jeremiah Smith, Motion, Nauvoo, Hancock Co., IL

      • 30 May 1844; Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL; unidentified handwriting; docket and notation in handwriting of Willard Richards.
      • Ca. 30 May 1844; Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL; handwriting of William Clayton.
      30–31 May 1844

      Docket Entry, Nauvoo, Hancock Co., IL