Case ID: scl_7/html/0493-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Nott, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Columbia,
    
      November Term, 1814.
    John & Wm. Logan ads. The State.
    Goodwyn, for the Motion,
    
    Stark, Solicitor, Contra.
    
    Murder.
    This was an indictment for the murder of Samue^ Hairs.
    
    It appeared that the prisoners were committed to gaol in December, 1813. At-the spring term, 1814, whilst in gaol, they demanded their trial under the habeas corpus act. At that term, the presiding judge (Smith) declared the jury unlawful, and dismissed them, in consequence of which, no bill of indictment was given out. And in the fall term, 1814, there was no court on account of the non-attendance of judge Brevard, by indisposition. About the day of November, 1814, they were bailed under the habeas corpus act, Last term, the bill of indictment was found and given out, after they had been admitted to bail. They then demanded their trial; when the state put off the cause generally, because it was not ready. The prisoners then moved for their discharge ; which, after argument was refused by the court; from which decision they appealed, and now moved for their discharge on the following grounds: Because, having been in confinement when they demanded their trial, and the state not being ready during three courts, they were entitled to it under the habeas corpus act.
   Nott, J.

The only question in this case is, whether a prisoner who has been out on bail, is entitled to his discharge under the habeas corpus act, after having demanded his trial? In the case of Buyck, this question was decided against the prisoner. Since that ca'se, the law has been considered as settled. This motion, therefore, must be discharged.

Justices C qlcocic, Brevard, Bay, and Smith, concurred.