2 Cranch 612 | U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia | 1825
(nem. con.) discharged the prisoner on the ground of the want of a seal, and the informality of the warrant, and did not recommit him, because there was no evidence that he had committed any offence in the District of Columbia.
The prisoner was afterwards arrested again and committed upon a charge of stealing lottery tickets and a penknife, from B. O. Tyler in this county, and was again brought before the court by habeas corpus, when Mr. C. C. Lee and Mr. Jones, for the prisoner, contended that although the commitment be perfectly regular and formal and states that the parly is charged on oath with an offence for which the committing magistrate has a right to commit, the court can and will rehear the case and revise his judgment. 3 Bac. Abr. tit. “Habeas Corpus,” p. 438, (B) 13; 1 Chit Crim. Law, 113;, Cald. 295; 1 Leach, 270; 4 Chit. Crim. Law, 123, etc.; Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch, [8 U. S.] 114; Com. v. Holloway, 5 Bin. 512; Claxton’s Case, 12 Mod. 566.
THE COURT, on the next day, which was the last day of the term, decided (THRUS-TON, Circuit Judge, dissenting, and wishing further time to consider the question,) that they would examine the witnesses, as they were all present; but said that they would not consider themselves bound by this case as a precedent. After examining the witnesses, THE COURT ordered the prisoner to find bail in $500, and upon his refusal, the prisoner was remanded.