Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1807-02-25

pears tia. a commitment by the sessions
at the Old Bailey, criminal couit Of We.
ry high authority, which had Jurisdiction
! over the offence, did not prevent the court
Iof common pleas from relieving By habras
corpus.
/ So also by the Forrest laws in England,
IN former times, thejndge of the Forrest
had Jurisdiction, for the punishment OF OF.
fences within the Forrest and JET it APP.
pears from Institute 200, that a persod
committed by the judge Of the Forrest,
!, for such an offence, might be relieved
| by habeas corpus, from the superior
courts.
II is we'll Known, too. thar by the laws
of England the king has power TO eree..
courts, by special commission. with pow.
CIR TO try and punish offences From
Woods case, S Wilson 173. il appears,
that person committed BY such commits
sioners, Ia case which ,hey had auihori-.
,y TO try, may be relieved BY hsbeas cor.
pus. Fhis, therefore, cannot be the rea.
| son.
Is II because the circuit court is court
of record I So is the court Of Pie Pow
ders. Ra, can il be imagined that if the
court of Pie Powders. were 70 commit a
man in England, the power OF relieving by
habsas corpus, from the superior courts,
would be thereby taken away? Congress
| may institute as many inferior courts OF
record as they please. Can it be imagined
tina, by instEu,ing such courts, they cacin
effect suspend ,he writ Of habeas corpus,
indefinitely, and 10 cases where the sus.
pension ssxpfessly forbidden by the con.
s,isntion.
This fower moreover has been shewn
| 10 be appellate and it is OF the very es-
sence of appellate power, to review the de-
cisions of interior courts of record 1880
Can il be imagined that such a decision
| may be reviewed where small amount
| Of property is effected and that there is
| no ,elief where it d-priyesa citizen OF bis
liberty
Between superior courts Of record Of
equal authority and coordinate rack, there
| may be, and may properly be, comfy 90.
served, which would prevent them IRON
| attempting 30 interfere with the decision
of each other. Perhaps Ia England the
curt Of Common Pleas, would not al
tempt TO release BY Habeas Corpus, aper-
son com miited By the E.xchequer orChan-
Gerry, and vice versa. But this comfy
cannot exist betweea superior aud inferior
courts; and ,hese is No doubt that the
cous, Of Kings Bench, which is a court
superior TO the Coeamon Pleas and Elk
| chequrr, would gfans writ Of Habeas
Corpus, for any person Imprisoned by eli
,hss of those coats for a criminal mat
Ter.
| But the point, may il please your honogs
for which contend, does rot rest on Sc.
neral reasoning alone, however strong.
| Il has been expressly adiudged by this
| eourt. The case Of i5urfogd formerly
| cited is complete authority on this point
| as well as on the former court, sRurtord's
case had been acted on judicialiy by the cir.
| cuii of this district. He stood committed
| underiss decision. That courtindeed did
| oot commit hin, in the first instance, bus
he was brought before IL on habess cor.
/ pus-ahe order Of commitment made by
shejus,ices OF the peace was altered and
modified, and he was -recommisted BIZ a
aew and diffsren, order from the circuit
| court. This rscomnaitment was as com.
plete adjudication upon the subjecs as the
| commitment in the present Case. One
was as much DISCRIMINATION on record4y
| the circuis court as the other; and one caa
no more than the other, preclude the ex-
ereise of this honorable coau'spower 10
relieve on habeas corpus
Here again l claim for my client the
| beuefi, OF this decision. / again appeal
20 the great n,axins ss stare decisis." Ia
| gain depseca.e the dangers and mischiets
that must ensue, if precedenrsia favor of
liberty, made ia times and under circu N !.
stances the most favorable to correct deci-
II 4 4. -. Il