Motion, 30 May 1844 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B]

  • Source Note
  • Historical Introduction
Page [1]
image
State of Illinois)
City of )
Municipal Court Special Session
May 30th. 1844
In the matter of the Petition of vs.
And now, the said moves the Court here that he be discharged & suffered to go at large
1st. Because the Court <​person​> issuing the warrant on which he has been arrested <​is unauthorized to issue the same.​> has exceeded the limits of its jurisdiction, as to the matter concerning which it has undertaken to act.
2. Because the has been issued in a case & under circumstances where the Law does not allow process.
3. Because the person having the custody of said is unauthorised to execute the warrant under which he is acting & is not the person empowered by Law to detain him.
4. Because said has been <​by &​> before a competent Court legally examined & discharged in relation to the subject matter set forth in said Warrant
5. Because said writ is defective in a substantial form required by Law
By Attorneys [p. [1]]
State of Illinois)
City of )
Municipal Court Special Session
May 30th. 1844
In the matter of the Petition of vs.
And now, the said moves the Court here that he be discharged & suffered to go at large
1st. Because the person issuing the warrant on which he has been arrested is unauthorized to issue the same.
2. Because the has been issued in a case & under circumstances where the Law does not allow process.
3. Because the person having the custody of said is unauthorised to execute the warrant under which he is acting & is not the person empowered by Law to detain him.
4. Because said has been by & before a competent Court legally examined & discharged in relation to the subject matter set forth in said Warrant
5. Because said writ is defective in a substantial form required by Law
By Attorneys [p. [1]]
Page [1]