Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1833-12-24

counsel, that whilst proper OCCASION Il ought 10
be met with hrmness on the other hand, is the part
Of wisdom, to decline the decision Of such question
when not necessary. From the view which have
taken OF this case, do consider it necessary and
rhaii therefore pass without further remark. Ii was
eontended at the bar that there many
mitied by the Auditor. the dating account which
rms proceeding is founded To all the arguments OF this
k'nu, mere ~ one general answer-tha not sitting
mere 10 revise this case, Appellate Court, upon
court Of error is IL before u.s. spe
ciai Jurisdictions In England before the King Bench
by cerorar. In either OF those aspects Of the subject
the would be before aud dire Y, and
then the question would be- error or no error and then
the arguments which have just referred TO, would be in
points but, sitting arc. upon habeas corpus, the
question s not, whether there error in the
but whether there was jurisdiction OF the in the
dor oil the treasury it was settled ~ early as the great
arshasea case Ia 10th Coke rs, and principle has
never been departed from. that here court has ursdic
son, and proceeds in verso oTdne eroneousy there
the proceeding Is only uoda6 but where the court has
not jurisdiction OF the there the whole
eord non JUDGE, and uOd the books, both English aud
American, abound in cases exeupliiyng this principle.
But Habeas Corpus will not lie. where the ,mprison-
ment Is under vodsbie process, but only whore s
~ void; Tor void process the thug there were
none at all; aud then the party in effect h.
out any authority whatever Hence the qnesii, would
seem naturally 10 arise. whether the Auditor had jurisc-
ZION In the case-in other words whether the person
the subject matter such bring the case within
the provisions OF the OF Congress-for these are the
criteria oil jurisdiction This question elaboratsy
argued al the bar and have considered IL with Great
care forbear, however, to enter into the discussion
OF II here because, although II .houd be clearly made
ont, that the Auditor hal had jursdcon vet upon
the TACT: In THIS another question arises which, in
my opinion OF the case, aud that is after the
Auditor shall once nave settled of public Off
Ger, and closed il, in this Is competent for him a,
an after time, allegation Of error omission or Tor
resacd institute proceedings by warrant of distress
against the debtor? think il is Let try the Que
by reference to some take sound
princpe that whena special tribunal with limited
power, and particular jurisdiction, that whenever the
given is executed the jurisdiction exhausted and
at an end-tha the person thus invested with is in
W., il
j.. think, sustained by the Bingham S5 where
II said by the Court that when magistrate who pow.
er to convict has convicted his jurisdiction at an
end-he is functus c6icio. Gould he any after time,
upon some supposed error quash, in any way impair
the efficiency OF his own conviction. Suppose conro.
versy be submitted arbrators and that thew had
made hna award, and delivered il, could they after
wards, oil their own mere notion change set aside their
own award! Lest, however, might be supposed that
there might be any thing peculiar in this case by
oil their being Judges OF the parties choosing let
suppose OF special jurisdiction or DO given
by law Under the imposing direct taxes, ssors
appointed 10 value the lands slaves of the coun-
try, with view TO just apportionment After they
mad made and completed their assessment that il
once communicated, agreeabIy 10 the requirements
could they afterwards, in any manner altered it,
NO as TO change the valuations? Suppose that
bankruptcy, had once decided on given case-ha the
party rader-that he had committed an act of bank
rupcy, and had, in all respects, completely the
power conferred upon them, could they afierwa by
their authority have vacated set aside their act
Finay-suppose that the commissioners appointed (un-
der OF the treaties under which we an
indemnity from Spain, France Naples 10 adiudge the
claims Of our citizens had fully executed that rusthad
made and announced an entire distribution of the fund
could they at an after time, have varied their adju-
dicaton! In all the which have put, enquire
into the power OF the special jurisdiction, Of its
mere authority to alter impair what they had done.
Examples might be indefinitely muplied-these are suf
hciento illustrate my idea, viz that whenever special
Jurisdiction has once executed the power with which it
was invested their p0wers at ond the subject
relation to which ii has been executed Let trace the
injurious consequences Of contrary doctrine Until the
power OF the Auditors executed the officer knows
hayi nted IN
But H. alter the had been dated closed
he could open again. how often, and within what period
o time, shall he do it, There is obviously limitation
either as to length OF me frequency Suppose af
ter once stating II, and then opening and restaing
on alleged error he should think lie had error
he must open and restate again 1t will be observed
that though the Auditor in this did give party
notice the law does not require it; unless therefore, he
snail be restrained TO one settlements would be compe-
tent TO him, years after the death OF the original party
without notice. in the absence OF his who
might he dispersed through the United States in the
absence OF all proof their part settle the
manner which would produce great Injustice But again;
III be competent him open the account in fdpor of
the u. 81 the adverse OF the proposition must be equally
true upon the principles OF justices il be
INN al.o alter the lapse of TO open against the u
81 and IN avor OF the party Might this
jurously affect the public INTEREST," seems to me- that
adoctrine which leads to such cannot be
SOUND; nor Is the Government without ample remedy,
though this power shall be denied TO the Auditor sup
pose there be doubt, that bill equity would lie
to surcharge and falsify. as in OF settled
tween individuals; and moreover according the doctrine
OF the Supreme Court, in lith Whea 237 at
although settled account would be prnd facie evidence,
yet II could recover upon proving mistakes omissions
any sum OF which il had been thus unusly deprived.
Nobody doubts the of the Auditor settle
counts OF the public officers from time tme they
snail fa to account pay any accrung after pre-
vious settlements; the objection settling
once settled, and which have ported TO have been
full and final settlement, at the time when made for the
law requires that 10 be done.
have felt some difficulty upon the question: VIII Their
Habeas Corpus could be sustained in favor of party
imprisoned under civil process in this case The dill
VIZ iph no.
rites. although decided by neither. In exparte Wilson,
DIN Cranch, o. the party arrested by sd, and
was In prison bounds. An application made for Ha.
beas Corpus, on the ground that the creditor had
TO pay his daily allowance The said not
tsied that Habeas Corpus the proper remedy
case OF arrest under civil In 18th John 1872
Supreme Court Of New York, except one of the
express the doubt and the case in Cranch
The Judge, in delivering The opinion of the Court says
II were necessary to decide the point, he should say
would not lie in such case.
suppose that probably lie doubt originated from this
fact The celebrated Habeas Corpus Act OF 81 Charles
which, Judge Kent in his Cumme saws is the
and which in Practice, by reason oil its valuable prov
SONS Tor eDsurDg speedy action, has almost superseded
the common law, has bee held England 10 be confined
to criminal cases. All the Judges OF England in ans
to propouoded 10 them by the House Of Lords
answered.: hat IL did not extend any Of impri.
soDnent, detaner, or restraint whatsoever except cases
OF commitment for criminal supposed criminal mat
ters, 81 BAG. 433. Mole Al the this on son
in substance, put 10 them: Whether person impr
soned apply Tor Hsbeas Corpus sd subjiciendun, al
common law and make affidavit that he does not believe
that his imprisonment Is by virtue Of a coinfni n
Tor any criminal, supposed criminal matter, would
such affidavit, as the law then Stood be probable
e..