Docket Entry, 30–31 May 1844 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B]

Document Transcript

Municipal Court.
State of Illinois)
City of )
, vs. on .
Docketing suit .22½ <​.12½​>
Habeus corpus writ .50
Swearing to petition .12½
Servi[c]e on Habeus Corpus 2.00
Justices fees— 15.50
’s attendanc 2.00
Entering final judg[me]nt. .25
continuanc of suit [.]25
May 30th 1844. Came and upon the reading and filing the petition for a writ of Habeus 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 .
The Writ of Habeus corpus was served by the in court, and present, which writ with the ’s return thereon are <​is​> on file in the clerks’ office
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.
The [illegible] 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 prosecution. <​prosecuting party.​>
, appeared before the court and said “I stand here as an Agent of 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. Esqr. , of , and Mr [William M.] McPherson of .
The Marshal, presented the for trial. [p. 100]
The court ordereed the to take charge of the . and have him forthcoming from time to time for trial.
asked for an adjourn[m]ent until after-noon.
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 and move a discharge on the insufficiency of the papers. has no <​legal​> authority to arrest the , and read from page 51. Revised Statutes of . Sec 399.
Said he could show the Law differ[e]nt and asked for one weeks adjourned.
1. o’clock P. M. Court adjound, till after dinner to hear the .
3 o’clock P. M. Court sat, the same as in the morning.
and counsel for , read and filed their plea. Moving the Cou[r]t. that said be discharged and sufferd to go at large.
1st Because, the person issuing the warrant on which he has been arrested is unauthorized to issue the same.
2d Because the has been issued in a case and under circumstances where the Law does not allow process.
3d. Because the person having custody of said is unauthorized to excute the warrant under which he is acting, and is not the person empowered by law. to detain him.
4th. Because Said has been by and before a competent court. legally examined and discharged in relation to the subject matter set forth in said warrant.
5th Because Said writ is defective in a substantial form requird by law.
was called, and persisted in considering the authority under which he acted good and Sufficient
urged [2 words illegible] in <​the 1st & 2​> count, in his plea. and read from the constitution of the , Art 4. 2nd sec, 2d Par.
3d [3 words illegible] <​Count​>. read Revised Statutes of , page 51. sec 399, and p. 324.
4th [illegible] <​Count.​> Read the certificate of John S. Dunlap Clerk of the District Court for the County of Desmoines, Iowa Territory, dated May 21, 1844, a copy of which is on file in the clerks office,
said he had nothing to say. and the case was submitted
Decision. The Court is of opinion when they take into consideration their oath to support the constitution of the . that the certificate of John S. Dunlap, Clerk of the District Court for the County of Desmoines [p. 101] Territory of Iowa is sufficient to authorize the discharge of the because the constitution says no person shall twice be put in Jeopardy of life for the same offence. The decision of the court is that the be discharged on all the points, for which has been made in his behalf. and that judgment be entered again[s]t the prosecutor for costs, [p. 102]