Case ID: tex_43/html/0075-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Roberts, Chief Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ex Parte A. C. Hill.
    Habeas corpus.—An application for the writ of habeas corpus which alleges the illegal detention to be under a commitment issued by order of the District Court will be refused unless a copy of the writ be annexed to the petition, or it be stated in the application that a copy cannot be obtained. A statement that a copy “cannot be obtained without great delay” is not sufficient.
    Oil the 12th of April, 1875, A. 0. Hill applied to this court for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he was a deputy United States marshal, and that he was unlawfully deprived of his liberty by one Green DeWitt, sheriff of Gonzales county, who acted under authority of a commitment issued by the District Court of that county. He alleged that the offense charged against him and for which he was committed was “ unlawfully bearing arms,” that a copy of the commitment could not be obtained “ without great delay,” &c.
    
      F. Britton, for relator.
   Roberts, Chief Justice.

This application states that A. C. Hill is in the custody of the sheriff' of Gonzales county, “under a commitment from the State District Court of said Gonzales county.” It is uncertain in not stating whether the process of commitment was mesne or final. The application states that the process “ cannot be obtained without great delay.”

Article 2597 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that “when the party is confined or restrained by virtue of any writ, order, or process, or under color of either, a copy shall be annexed to the petition, or it shall be stated that a copy cannot be obtained.”

The application is not sufficient in this case, and is therefore refused by order of the court.

Refused.