*1 5F¡8 SUPREME COURT. parte
Ex Tobias Watkins. W., at May term corpus. the circuit court of district Habeas 1829 of the Columbia, upon was tried three the of indictments for offences States, and on imprisonment United. was sentenced for three each fine, months, dollars, on pay and to one on indictment of thousand two dollars, fifty and hundred hun- another seven on another and of three dollars, costs of prosecution. dred the .No award either was made on stand should committed the per- that 'W. until judgment, sentence be sentences, was, these under W. committed the then formed. district, upon office, and expiration of the of his and marshal successor, after the term was appointment W.’s exhausted, jail, delivered with, he was over prisoners, his suc- other cessor, since been has ever detained custody. The of im- timé t-lie May 14th expired 1830. On September the 3d prisonment attorney sued forth three several levy writs fieri facias to district “ fines, returned nulla which were bona.” February On the 16th capias ad three writs satisfaciendum were issued against W. fines, to the next returnable term the May, court which writs W., marshal take safely keep, commanded and have his court term, the circuit first Monday before to satisfy costs, the fines States for United &c. No return was tomade marshal, according writ, exigency court and nothing 1833; until the day done 10th of January further when the late mar- amade return to each the district writ of shal of ” my over to and delivered successor in cepi petitioned office. W. corpus, a habeas asserting illegally 'he was court confined. The writ; thereof, and on the discharged awarded the prisoner court from confinement. corpus award habeas This court this state of facts. of the appellate power it is the exercise As court to award the writ, jurisdiction its revising it within to do so. It is the effect of the court detained; of the circuit under which prisoner and is original jurisdiction. the exercise of States, amendment to the eighth constitution of The the United which de- fines shall imposed, not be clares excessive is addressed to courts of exercising jurisdiction, States criminal and is doubtless man- to, datory and limitation their discretion. But court have no courts, jurisdiction appellate revise sentences of inferior in criminal cases; cannot, if the even excess was apparent fine on the record, reverse the sentence. could not longer be detained in jail than the return and he brought should then process; have been into the circuit committed, by marshal, order of the the custody pay- JANUARY TERM 1833. done,
ment of the fine. This not having been by the law of Maryland, which is the part law of the of the district of Columbia in which is situated city Washington, ishe entitled to be discharged from confinement process. *2 WATKINS, Mr by Brent, TOBIAS his counsel, presented court, forth that' setting at the petition of the term cir- Columbia, cuit district of court of the holden for the county first Monday 1829, Washington, May on .the certain pre- were him, sentments and indictments found against three of which trials indictments were had and verdicts passed against him, and on such verdicts judgments were respectively . pronounced by condemn him purporting to certain terms of and also to the imprisonment, payment certain pecuniary costs, fines and for the offences therein. supposed For the nature of those proceedings referred to petitioner filed in this with an exemplifications made application to the court at term January 3 Peters’s 193. The Rep. stated that petition immediately after the rendition of such and judgments, same, pretended execution of the on the he, 14th August day petitioner, was committed to the common county Washington, and there re- until the terms of imprisonment imposed by seve- mained ral had the same judgments expired, having on the expired 14th and 1830: that ever since that .May time he has been, and detained in the still criminal apartment is. under the
prison, colour and pretence authority, only of three but certain writs issued judgments, 16th day the clerk of the February circuit court of by Washington orders of the by district county, special attorney for Columbia, States the district of as he has been informed believes, and at the and request by direction of the president of the United States. That he is detained in illegally prison writs, of the said as he authority advised; is well and avers no for they give authority his commitment and de- tention, been not having only illegally issued, oppressively he been them but deprived privilege secured to land, the laws of the to be-released from imprisonment on the of his ground insolvency, and unable being pay debts.
.Vol. VII.—3 W SUPREME COURT. detention and no
The writs gave present in May than the first Monday a longer imprisonment, period time, to have even the writs 1830; which admitting since issued, his has been illegal op- legally the fines whatever. That .any authority alid without pressive,- land, as excessive, such, contrary as to the laws of has been since and ever they.were time imposed, same, land that and it is not the law of the unable to pay for life fines he cannot shall be confined citizen laws, refused the benefit of the insolvent has been He pay. court; from his inabi- be obtained from if relief cannot he will confined for life. lity to fines pay benefit of the -writof habeas corpus petition prays Columbia, in to be marshal of the district of directed to the com-, is, of said jail, your whose custody, keeper petitioner of your before honours the your him to bring manding commitment, cause of his petitioner, together writ, with said record him.to commanding especially *3 , indictments, with the said judgments upon proceedings writs several under and the supposed thereupon, detained; is now to certify your and petitioner which be and de- actually imprisoned your petitioner whether aforesaid, in a criminal tained; by of said jail, as apartment and in-virtue of said several writs.” authority, the supposed a rule to show on a cause returnable sub- granted The court term. day sequent Coxe, Mr Brent and argued by was Mr for
The case relator; Taney, and Mr United by attorney-general States. Story delivered the the Court.
Mr Justice opinion to of habeas an the court to award writ Is This application Watkins; a as- of Tobias prisoner, corpus up of Wash- be in the common confined jail serted illegally of- Columbia, .the district of ington county the United States court of from execution-issued circuit wag rule attorney-gen- same district. served A upon eral, granted; show should not be why cause application of that cause fully the- has been argued upon TERM 1833.
JANUARY. rule., is admitted that all the facts the case existing have been laid would before exactly they appear if returned; the habeas had so awarded duly corpus that the which the court called judgment pro- upon nounce, is that which 'to be ought precisely pronounced upon a full to the the return writ of habeas hearing upon corpus, it has been so at the bar. accordingly argued
The material facts are as follows. was tried at the Watkins term of May the circuit court three several indict- ments found that term for certain offences against States;. against found guilty, was upon being each indictment sentenced three imprisonment calendar fines, months, wit, and to certain on one indictment two pay dollars, another, thousand on seven hundred and dollars, fifty dollars, a third hundred with costs of three prosecution. in either of the no judgments, award There.is stand committed until sentence Under these performed. sentences Watkins committed to immediately was jail district; and then marshal of the of his -upon expiration office, which was after the term was exhaust- imprisonment over, ed, successor, and the of a delivered appointment successor; other and he has ever prisoners since been detained custody. terms awarded the 14th of 1830. expired judgments May the 3d the district On sued September attorney facias, aforesaidfines; forth three writs fieri several to levy which due return was made the marshal nulla th of bona. district Upon February attorney sued forth three several writs of fines, Watkins to the same were all return levy
able then next of the circuit court.' these May term By *4 Watkins, is marshal commanded to take precepts the circuit court so that safely body'before keep, next, on the first Monday then unto satisfy .of May fine, .No was United'States costs and return charges. made-to the court to the exi according circuit the marshal of ; these the. writs further gency appears and nothing upon records and 10th of Jan of the until the proceedings made when the late of the uary marshal district COURT. SUPREME
672 n parte Delivered as Cepi. follows. to each ad satisfaciendum capias in office.” over to successor my arisen questions the facts several this state of .have Upon one, ; and preliminary bar at the argued whether, is, of the court. This nature, its at the suggestion case, the jurisdic court possess under the circumstances arewe full consideration And upon tion to award the writ. The question do possess jurisdiction. the court opinion or appel it is an exercise original this, turns whether upon former, then, be the present it late If jurisdiction. court cases in which the constitution allows not one of the denied. the writ must be Mar original jurisdiction, to exercise Madison, Cond. 137, S. C. 1 1 Cranch’s Peters’s Rep. v. bury awarded, since latter, then it 267. If the Rep. 20, sect. authorized act of ch. clearly judiciary was decided in the case Ex parte issue it. This court to Swartwout, 4 Hamilton, 17; Ex Bollman and 3 Dall. parte Cranch, 75; and Ex Wheat. 38. Kearney, Rep. whether, in the actual case before the doubt was since it to be exercised not original, jurisdiction sought not the validity original brought question, process satisfaciendum, but the of detainer right present capias however, reflection, further under it. .the prisoner Upon doubt has been removed. satisfaciendum must be consid
The award of the court, it ered as the act of the circuit being judicial process, the court. The is in under issuing party under is then in contem He custody, process; law, the award court. plation so, he is is the to be de Whether now very question rightfully should, court decide that the If the hearing, cided. upon detainer, ád satisfaciendum present justifies it would an clearly.be exercise remand should prisoner, be a revision and ; for it would confirma jurisdiction appellate below. But the the act the court jurisdiction tion its decision the merits of a never can upon depend befpre to hear and decide it it; but its right brought case said, Madison, Cranch, 137, it was In v. Marbury at all. the essential criterion of jurisdiction that it is appellate *5 TERM 1833. JANUARY 573 parte Watkins. [Ex ] revises in a and corrects the cause insti- proceedings already ; tuted and does not create that cause. criterion,
Tried this the case beforeus comes in an by appellate form, for it seeks the acts of the to revise circuit court. In Ex Swartwout, Cranch, 75, Bollman and 4 parte were prisoners under of commitment of the an order circuit custody court; held, and it was award of a writ of habeas that an corpus by court was an exercise supreme On appellate jurisdiction. that said, occasion the far as the case of court so v. Marbury Madison had distinguished .original between appellate jurisdiction, that which the to exercise is court is asked clearly appellate. It is the decision inferior which a by of an citizen has Hamilton, been committed 3 Ex Dall. 17, jail. wa.s a commitment under a warrant a district by judge; court awarded a writ habeas supreme corpus revise the bail; decision, Ex and admitted the In party parte Burford, Cranch, 448, was in under a commit prisoner ment for want giving circuit court by recognizance for court. behaviour, as awarded The good by supreme of habeas court relieved him on a-writ In all corpus. these cases treated as an of the writ was exercise of issuing ap it make could no difference pellate jurisdiction; right the court to whether the jurisdiction, pror entertain annulled or court below were confirmed. ceedings Con then, do, are but we that we sidering effect revising awarded the circuit detained, we cannot prisoner say exercise of an original jurisdiction.
The to entitle relied on grounds principally prisoner.to ,the First, are: fines discharged imposed excessive, and to'the contrary amendment eighth of the con- ; declares, stitution which that excessive fines shall not be en- Secondly, forced. could not be detained orithe than the longer he should then process; brought court, and circuit committed order of the court to the custo- of the marshal for of the fine : dy otherwise payment of Maryland' is the law of laws of the dis- (which part entitled trict), discharge. be very of. point may shortly first disposed The. COURT, SUPREME parte.Watkins.] is addressed courts of the Staté's
eighth amendment mandatory criminal and is doubtless exercising jurisdiction, them and their *6 a limitation discretion. But this to the no revise of inferior jurisdiction sentences appellate the cases; cannot, of courts in criminal even if the excess . record, on the reverse the And fine were sentence. apparent if court a it added that such may possessed jurisdiction, .be - which, the in this establishes case, record nothing there is of fines were at the time the judgment present passing fact, were shown to the circuit be excessive. This or to court be therefore dismissed. objection may is of more difficulty. other .far 'ground The importance law,' a common whenever fine consti theAt a of a a criminal tute conviction in part judgment upon pom is if the in. case, is that he be judgment, party to thé fine sentence, execution of and until jail mitted court,, If he’is not then in of is writ capias special paid. is, that his him; exigency issues of which pro fine taken and committed until the fine is jail be body paid (a). cannot, awarded, á committitur detained such be be Unless of the sentence. It is the warrant in execution in jail . detention No authorizing .of prisoner. capias the. jailor, cases; the form to civil where ad satisfaciendum appropriate is to take the body of writ party exigency have his so that the sheriff before safely keep, writ; is the return ever .process court , If, case- issuable. were be or present issued therefore law, ad common the process tried by capias satisfacien be detained,, wholly would dum, under which detention. insufficient justify see, then, how the' case stands laws us Let which, indeed, it is be The act governed. Maryland, 1777, 6, ch. which seems 20th April spe- Maryland to the fines recovery pecuniary forfeit- cially applicable statute, that if such fines and forfeitures ures fixed by declares^ indictment, court either commit may be recovered by shall sheriff, or to the till the offender public payment to. Sheriff, ch. 33, Law, 721; p. p. Crim. ch. Chitty’s I Dalton’s (a) See Law, 159; 16, p. ch. 4 Chitty’s 373. Crim. TERM 1833. JANUARY lands, on the offender’s the same levy goods execution order any, act is not supposed application This or chattels. 20th of act of ch. April casé.. present common law fines recovery for-the more and.effectual speedy where fine shall any provides, recognizances, and forfeited record for common any law offence any be enforced by lawful shall be attorney-general on any person, satisfaciendum, writ of order of his either deputies facias, issued of the sum recovery to be a writ of fieri such writs shall and proceedings may thereon, due are where similar writs issued on had, cases judg- be as in here-stated, suits. It -that ments personal obtained Maryland same .in writs as those in the common exigency prescribed substance in their act there 4), (sect. proviso extend, section law. In another' shall be contained construed to therein nothing courts, do, as they *7 to might lawfully the several prevent heretofore fine, from the any non-payment any from of person committing to it so do. This if com- proviso shall deem they expedient hi antecedent to have Maryíañd the practice pletely establishes law, to commit the common offender at the like that fine, leaves it the discretion of the the of payment case. future any By necessary court to it in order implication offend¿r order it such the is not detaina- affirms, that without the fine. blé in 74; which, act of December ch.
Then came the 24th as to the arisen of a after that doubts had issuing capias reciting forfeitures, of fines and ad for the recovery pro- vides, be the lawful for and his attorney-general it-shall -officio,and ex aré directed they hereby deputies required to order ad the the county, writs capias application pf sheriffof be for the of all recovery satisfácienduñi to issued fines and of the to be the forfeitures. section Another act-declares ad of the the writ capias sheriffs return duty satisfacien- returnable at term courts, the they the which dum the sheriff sameand wherever of the succeeding.the issuing the return, that taken body make he has party, shall in court the to acknowledge he shall be either obliged open forfeiture, or to of the amount of fine produce receipt SUPREME COURT. [Ex parte to which body- the said party writ shall the. returned; thereof, and in be default upon motion shall attorney-general deputy, order judgment for the the sheriff amount of costs. against There is the 25th of December prior'act ch. after are often reciting which plaintiffs willing grant writs, to defendants arrested on ad satis- indulgence capias doubts' faciendum, but have arisen whether such indulgence without can be of the benefits granted depriving plaintiffs execution, that in further case of an arrest of any provides satisfaciendum, ad any defendants if the capias the. plain- tiffs shall elect with the consent not to call the defendants term, returnable, at which it is execution during plain- tiff afterwards defendant by new proceed statute execution. This has reference then ex- practice sheriff, in Maryland, isting day satisfaciendum, defendant, capias produce arrested, and for the then to be if him to commit plaintiff pray ; in its to civil ted. terms it suits Only yet Although applies it has from course of recognizing Maryland, its practice ; for the act bearing controversy material present declares that on writs of ad satisfaci capias 1777 expressly fines, such shall had as cases endum for proceedings of- ad satisfaciendum are suits issued capias where similar And, it is in entire certainly, conformity suits. personal, satisfaciendum; of the writ of exigency at the return if sheriff party, commands Whether the under the arrested, into court. practice different, so England party ad. satisfaciendum sheriff after the return day detained jail by bemay *8 court, and a committitur there- his body without producing since if it is not material inquire; oh awarded by must govern. the Maryland there practice be any discrepancy, 1 and Harr. M’H. v. Goldsborough, The of Christie cases 200; John. go Harr. and Rep. and West v. 3 Hyland, leads certainly the latter affirm the : strongly practice into arrested and conclusion, brought if is a party in commit then court is prayed on the return day, at least ment, custody: He is no be detained longer 577 1833. TERM JANUARY that a new issue may case decides capias that he is not then him, which deemed in presupposes, the old one custody upon (a). the act of ch. 74
But the terms of has been already (as the writ ad satisfaciendum seen), capias expressly require for a fine to be returned into.court the return and the day; fine to be or the either acknowledged body paid, party otherwise be.entered produced; judgment up against sheriff for the amount. It clearly duty then produce It writ; is the body. very exigency when produced, the sheriff has whole performed duty required by the If the wishes him attorney-general to be precept. committed, he is entitled to commitment to be made pray it,, he does not it is difficult court. If pray perceive maintained, that what it can be upon ground the'party any of the sheriff. to be detained in the longer custody latter to,arrest has no .the to detain him power party, ac- except writ; he has to the cording exigency discharged his, himself of when he has whole duty, produced terms, in its no His authorizes detainer court. be- precept, then, day. the return what can yond Upon ground, infer it ?
If resort.be had to the to us certified clerks practice, courts, it is in Maryland coincidence with the perfect natural construction of the terms of the act. They assert the uniform writs of ad satisfaciendum practice criminal be, cases to then to party . award a committitur No instance is shown in which a party been held in term, ever after-the return such a satisfaciendum, without a committitur. Such uni form course is of itself practice, very evidence of cogent law. The in this district is not shown to be practice different. If it has not conformed to ihat of invariably seems Maryland, to have conformed to it in almost all cases.. The two only cases “ are where contrary, produced and the circumstances of these
cepi jail;” cases particular 2d, 40; See also p. Evans’s Harris’s Entr. vol. No. v. Fulton (a) Wood, ; 3 Rep. Dyer Beatty, Harr. and v. 3 Harr. and Rep. M’H. M’H. Von. VIL—3 X *9 COURT. 578 SUPREME parte [Ex Watkins.] The have may. been parties are unknown. already sentences. execution, under other or of the plain writ of import independent capias And satisfaciendum, there may sound reasons ad for requiring be. in court. The to be ad satisfacien- produced issued irregularly; dum have have may party may paid'the a fine; award; have received he to its may pardon subsequently have other matters a urge he commitment. may Gill, of the court in Turner v. Walker, remark The 377, 385, writ, an Johns. Rep. upon' analogous very appli- “ It is here. proper necessary,” say cable defendant, that it should be returned in security time, in order that have a term in court to day protect Indeed, the statute and as rights.” precept pro- course, this it is cess both incumbent those require who with, bemay or is dispensed unnecessary, contend some authority show which the ground principle nent can be maintained. 'We not been able to find argi. any. said, that where the has been convicted is party already
It when the sentence is is to be in custody passed, party until the fine is without any award of paid, deemed sentence, in the or the ad issuing any capias a commitment We know of no this satisfaciendum. justifying posi at the common law the laws of tion, either or under Maryland. the act of ch. the contrary, Maryland On plainly commit, or not a discretion in court to allows commit commitment, omission the fine. The to award as part sentence, is exercise of such a discretion. manifestly an awarded, can a committitur when only Unless be. must, seen, is in there be a the party court(a), law, fine the common laws of Mary capias pro satisfaciendum, arrest and land a deten justify tion. then, case, was
The capias pro- recover the necessary It was fine. .awarded. perly return ever made to the court is, that no difficulty marshal, until after the nor indeed long Law, {a) See 696. Chitty’s Criminal TERM 1833. 579- JANUARY Watkins was never brought expired. office had marshal’s of the court. He the order *10 court, nor committed into eyer has, term, the been held return now since held jail, satisfaciendum, which became the jail solely upon been the return He have day. might. officio after functus not if he had been jail, previously arrested and detained afterwards, but detention day; the return until custody, the every In not, justified by in our process. was judgment,, case, take can- been to view enabled which we have we to not or detention. justify find any principle faith, has been in entire good Doubtless the detention this results. vary cannot mistake of the law.- But that writ habeas corpus We are accordingly opinion for. issue, to ought prayed
Mr dissenting. Justice Johnson one of and the two questions,
This case presents jurisdiction; relief, if assume other we right jurisdiction. to so the first has been strong negative; My opinion that to the second; I have taken but I pains investigate little brief views will on both. my give exposition I it first have that need but to be thought On the be stated decided. is in of a satisfaciendum issu- custody prisoner of the circuit court of district. out this He has been con-
ing crime, inflicted, victed of a fine has and this writ it, to been issued as he was not sen- recover required by tence to remain in until the fine custody was It is not paid. that was legally issued conformably questioned or contended Maryland, laws whatever any ground first, the excessive discharging prisoner; except exists for the'fine;, this court hás now ground acter char decided which be dis- secondly, upon against; now wit, was on the that he not the writ charged, the- court, and there recommitted to formally brought until was detained' the fine marshal, to be paid. to me that it is avoid being does impossible
itNow appear dilemma, other with which or the one horn trussed on called Is this court met by attorney-general. case an act of an act against relieve SUPREME COURT. pane officersof the court ? If of then what act has the done, do, or omitted to prejudice defendant? is, The cause of that it has not complaint committed him to marshal; custody but the of the marshal is that we are now very injury called Is upon to.redress. which, omission to do that the terras of it is application would have acknowledged, legally him effectually deprived of his a matter liberty, for him to of? or for re- complain us to lieve from? But is a cause suppose complaint the court has erred in not an act which it doing was never do; then called they erred in a criminal And is it not therefore beyond causé ? to be acknowledged limits of our ? appellate jurisdiction is,
But the truth and it is it, that controvert impossible is, is, the relief complaint sought the marshal for a detention without The. court no er- authority. committed *11 ror in the made; under which the issuing process, arrest was if, established, as is now the has lost its efficiency, process is a (cid:127)and no mger ; justification it is detaining detained, not court that he is under but process with- it, therefore false out .and in the officer. Why did not the this motion to the prisoner present court that issued to the court ? whose officer process is, the marshal quoad obvious; The reason is hoc? had the court refused to dis- him, and this then charge here, been made application the ap- would have been too in a case of criminal peal palpably juris- diction. And in that event yet, only, would he have found a of this court redress claiming an of pretext act that court. At there is no act of that court for this-court present revise; for if not the order for commitment giving could be act, into such an then is, tortured the answer there never was a motion made to such an grant order: and if him in holding under of out of process, pretext that process, issuing court, can as a be considered subject here; of revision then is error, unaffected since, terms, by in motion here admits their to have since long expired hands: and the courtis surely marshal’s not responsible any donp under thing colour of its but for which the process, pro- no gives cess authority. is,
The truth a this is direct interference means of by TERM 1833. JANUARY for, States, a court between moved now writ executive, that court: officerof principles not next be we called may reason decision, why no I see this Thule, to our mouth writ the same Ultima .the to issue a ad satisfaci- under up prisoner the Oregon, whether he. has the debt or paid examine endum, order or is it the jurisdiction; proper employ- Is this appellate not. tribunal? of this ment Hamilton; a case on which case of out all grows This which, if a case one will decided, any was not
the question little autho- it, very will report pronounce examine Swartwout, of Bollman v. the case profess- followed Then rity. Hamilton; but a case which occurred to that of obedience ing came excitement. Next those of public in the midst great this, multi; and which finally et similes and Kearney, Burford conclusions to humble augury my opinion a distinct is led I have finally always precedent. we which exercise of and will jurisdiction, progress opposed to arrest it. remains it as long hope oppose but a few will make the second I remarks. On point, writ of have never doubted that I satis capias-ad faciendum, law, the sheriff ithe common take, only he was the defendant legally Imt detain until discharged; a detention in his authorizing own for the cus purpose s sheriff wa unheard of. commitment On the tody, defendant’s counsel of the book maintain quoted page doctrine, will be contrary precedes page quoted, found, in what entry, an cases the explains commit It true that this writ titur resorted to England. has its it, terms, requires and that day; production *12 that but defendant’s on body day: practically, exigency “ construction; writ has the received this that he him have on that it so ready to day, required the produce plaintiff,” vol. “if he does says, Blackstone not that ,p. satisfaction, remain in make he.must until he does.” Plomer, in the case of And v. 2 Black. Hopkins “ terms, gives court that to the writ. version express It is writ, the. sheriff’s to say obey duty, writ defendant, commands him to take the and him safely so keep, he have him to ready What satisfy figure plaintiff. SUPREME COURT a would sheriff make if to an action for England, escape; were to took that he plead defendant and brought &c., court on the in the literal day, language exigency of would one dream of No his detain- justifying writ? want of a ing But it is insisted prisoner, committitur. that the common law laws a under the undergone change practice Maryland.
I which, have seen no statute terms Maryland either in by inference, committitur makes to himself to necessary a sheriff in under a justify detaining sa- prisoner that, true tisfaciendum. It is by very humane and judicious the laws of provision, Maryland to permitted plaintiff debt; defendant in indulge execution without losing and 'from this the to might naturally grow practice up bring defendant into to await will of the court plaintiff: decided, the court have to very omitting motion properly him, remand did not his second execu- plaintiff deprive tion : but I look in to vain decision establish any going the sheriff been for false would have liable had imprisonment, he taken the back without a to prisoner commitment.
This has been sought to be a reference supplied clerks of the courts establish a to that Maryland practice effect; but I sucb means of at the protest' agáinst law getting case, of a as to a those are clerks especially practice called to date testify from subsequent separation Maryland. looked into the thus But I have evidence procured, and, even if look in vain evidence to legal, any I support the doctrine; them most of decline doubtingly, speak speak at all, ing and the sum and substance the certificates of the whole this, amount more the sheriff than if brings no will, motion, into court, the order a com mitment. But this is not the called we point are. that, decide we : to decide such com called without mitment, it the sheriff to re would be false district, sume the In this I think custody of defendant. there has furnished defendant evidence positive marshal, himself of the in the whether exercise of discretion not; into court or and there person I allude the individual. consult perhaps feelings those and defend- was cepi two instances in which the return *13 1833. JANUARY TERM We for ground in some may imagine ant less- possible jail.” instances; of these two but certainly ening pressure us, case, furnishes no such ground. as exhibited now made. I am order opposed dissented, on the that where M’Lean ground Mr Justice the marshal on been committed had defendant writ, satisfaciendum, of the it is not the before return day this district or the state of as he Maryland, either practice defendant, that it, to be may understood bring up it under the but is the in commitment: practice, prayed law, has been where a defendant Maryland construction satisfaciendum, on a go arrested permitted writ, return his day body until large commitment. that it be day, court on such prayed this case consideration filed in in behalf petition On and of the of counsel as well arguments petitioner, had, it as is the petitioner thereupon United States this court that the writ corpus of habeas ought opiniou considered, for. ordered and. issue as Whereupon, prayed forth-, this that a writ of corpus habeas adjudged States for issued, directed to marshal the United with Columbia, to have him the district commanding Tobias, his and de- caption with cause the said the-day writ, do,- tention, after receive immediately receipt all submit those singular things behalf, to have then concerning shall consider said writ and there doings with thereon. the marshal of the district of
To the writ of corpus habeas Columbia made return: following Ashton, marshal .of the United States
Henry Esq. Columbia, read court and filed the district of having open thereon, writ, viz. following together States, to America, the United States ss. The president Columbia, district of of the United for the marshal States arc you commanded hereby greeting: You. it- Watkins, your custody, Tobias detained under
body of SUPREME COURT. TEXparte Watkins.] said, under a safe and secure conduct, with the together *14 of his detention, and cause and caption by-whatsoever name same, he shall be called in the before the court of supreme States, United now of the United- sitting capitol States in the of Washington, city seat of being present the na- government, writ, tional after the immediately of this receipt and do, receive submit to all and those singular things the said court shall then there consider concern- supreme behalf, him in this ing then there this Writ with Witness, thereon. &c. your doings of the marshal. To the honourable the of judges Return court of United States. The supreme marshal of the dis- Columbia, trict issued, of obedience to the writ of habeas corpus by authority honours, of your now produces into hon- your Watkins, ourable court the of Tobias who has been office, ever since he came into custody delivered over to him by Tench he predecessor, that he had Ringgold, jail; stating been held in his virtue of custody by three writs of ad capias at the suit States, of United and by virtue of. writ of at the suit of capias respondendum, one William Cox, which said last upon mentioned writ he the said Watkins been into Cox, had commitment the said prayed had by been ordered commitment by honourable judges of circuit court the United Columbia, of States the district all sitting Washington county, whose the said by had been writs issued. That satisfied of the correctness being of his said -representations predecessor, continued to detain the said Watkins in or custody without any complaint allegation any illegality the said confinement wrong the rule until was moved for in at its honourable your term, at the Watkins, instance of be for cause present said writ, shown by attorney-general why United States of habeas Wat- should not said corpus granted before honours, kins the cause his deten- together your honours, tion. He further shows .to that since the said your for, aforesaid, moved writ Cox, of. rule dismissed; and from that time to the time of his receiving by said writ habeas virtue held him in corpus, he (he.suit at only three-writs ad satisfaciendum States, of the United to discharge considering improper TERM 1833. JANUARY parte Watkins.] honours your deliberations legality pending- under and of his detention virtue those writs illegality last mentioned.” whereof, and
On due consideration after deliberation there- considered, had, here it is now ordered adjudged behalf, that the said court, in this Wat- prisoner, Tobias kins, be, hereby from and he discharged under, confinement writs of the said three several satisfaciendum the' "States, suit in. said return of the marshal mentioned. of Watkins,
After Mr discharge this order of ihe ou the 19th of February 1833, was, the- lie same day, arrested and confined marshal *15 by district Colum- bia, under several three writs of ad satisfaciendum "issued. - on the same under which he had judgments, been previously detained in These writs dated "of prison. 19th were 1833, and were issued February order of the district attor- by ney Columbia; United States for district were next returnable at the term the circuit court of the district. A for a writ of habeas forth this petition corpus, setting it, airest and his was Mr presented by Watkins; a rule was, on the attorney-general motion, cause show same should granted, why .to not issue. rule, of this After Mr Coxe and Mr argument Brent, for. relator; and by Mr Taney, attorney-general States, and Mr Key, attorney United States Columbia;
for the district of. was rule “the discharged: divided as being equally question in-opinion award corpus, whether this court a writ of habeas ought in the case prayed pctitioncr’'(a). (a) At term of the circuit court the United States for the-March Columbia, county in the district ol’ Mr Watkins of'Washington court, dis corpus and was brought up on a writ of habeas awarded by the chief opinion delivered
charged, The.very learned justice appendix to volume. will be found in Ihe circuit Voi,. Y Yll.—3