The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1844-04-13
Kings County Circuit Court.
Rnfora Iudnn KunA


Eugene IL Suiiiean Ma,hew C. Perry tTota,ion Of
ne ha6eas Co'pus.The following points taken by
Sessrs Scoles and McKeon OF for the plaintiff in
this case, reported by yesterday.
lst That Supreme Court Commissioner has power TO
issue habeas corpus wher an apprentice in the United
States Navy unawuliy imprisoned without the process
OF any court or any charges produced against hinthis
not being an excepted case by the siane and that the
fact Of his being United States apprentice not shut
him out oil the pale ofthe civil jurisdiction.
2nd That having obtained jurisdiction of the by
the presentation Of petition duly verified and SUI Ne
quently deciding upon issue made before him that he
had jurisdiction, the adjudication OF the Commiss
conclusive upon this point until reversed his order dis
charging the party cannot be treated nuty, and in
sction for the penalty for REIMBURSEMENT for the
same cause it cannot be urged ound OF defence
that the Commissioner had jurisdiction, and that his
order might therefore be dsregarded
Judge Kent expressed his opinion that person attach.
ed to the Navy had 10y that act subjected himself to
authority which might be deemed OF depo,ism
He under the rules and regulations and subject
discipline OF the Navy and not protected by the habeos
corpus act Once lawfully enlisted he cannot apply Tor
protection from Imprisonment the civil authorities No
Judge Court has right enquire into the of his
Imprisonment, and TO discharge him upon habeas corpus
if no legal cause appear. This would be interference
with the discipline OF the Navy The provisions of the
habeas corpus act were for the protection of in
civil ie-not those attached to the army and navy.
Judge could issue habeas corpus for the purpose OF
asceraining whether person was lawfully enlisted as a
so enlisted he had no further power to proceed The
person then out OF his jurisdiction When, therefor
Judge Greenwood ascertained that sullivan law.
tuly enlisted apprentice III the u ). Navy, his power
ever him ceased lie ought TO have remanded him to the
service and not to have nterered with his Imprisonment
think that Judge Greenw God erred in REMINDING him 10
the service and dischargiDg him from his imprisonment
The Judge says his imprisonment without cause; bu,
think that he had no light to look into this matter
may be wrong but this Is my opinion The order made
by him was n1lty, and Commodore Perry justified
in disrcgadingit The question is important one and
will be reviewed by the supreme Cont who can correcs
me if The other objections in the case shall not
regard shall direct Donsu solely upon the ground
that Judge Greenwood had not Jurisdiction, and that his
order nullity, which Commodore Perry was autho
fiscd to disregard.
RicIinuOnd General Sessions.
April IiCess Of Mary Bodins.-Alout o'clock, T.
NJ the Grand Jury carried into Court by Mr.. Mark wy
nants their foreman and presented two bs of indictment
against Mary Bodine for murder for arson ior
receiving stolen goods and one for burglary. On the lat
ter being handed TO MIR Morrison, he Immediately rose
and demurrcd tnus TO the indictment which he had
not read through, for defect in form
The demurrer admitted by the District Attorney
to be well taken, and noiie prosrqu thereupon
tered The other cases were sent to the Oyer Term
The FoRrN also stated to the Court that he held in his
hand presentment, which he instructed by his fell
lows submit the Court and asked lcavs 10 have the
read by the clerk of their body and placed flo
Mr. MoRRsoS, as amieus cyie suggested the propriety
of having the paper examined by the Court before
be read the substance Of which that the Grand Jury
considered the proceedings OF yesterday, in giving fur
ther and special Instructions TO them, mputation
upon the Grand Jury, which they desired to remove
Mr. M then stated to the Grand Jury that the proceed
ings complained OF conveyed ccnsurc upon them but
had exclusive reference TO the course oil the District At
torney-that the statements contained in their present
have been derved from unreliable sources and
distinctly disclaimed the least censvre upon them.
Mr. CLARE the District Attorney, replied and charged
city lawyers with having attempted 10 dictate TO The
Court and Jury as to the course of proceedings in the
OF Mrs Bodine, and that e,as officer OF the court
protested against It,
Mr. NJ with considerable warmth, ropellci the
ton and said that the suggestion Of the District Attorney
was species oil petyogiDg which did deserve and
would not receive any answer from him That being
member Of he was as much an officer Of the court
AZ Mr. Attorney, who, like other small cocks might Eel
more confidence while standing on his own hilock IN
the absence OF his learned Associate Mr. Graham, he felt
bound to Interfere when their conduct was unusly as-
sailed The Foreman appeared 10 be satisfied " IN thcex
PLANTATION given, and the jury were discharged Tor the
term.
recognizance had been entered into by Mr.. House
man the elder for the attendance OF Albert Bodine
witness at the next Court OF oyer and 1erminer.
The DrHor ArrofNrr insisted that II should also be
signed by the witness who was minor
Mr.. Monnos objected TO gratifying the caprces OF the
ges,eman any fnfiher-that Mr.. Z. knew, ought to
know that an infant could not bind himself in that way
The DnrHcr AIroRSEr strcnuousy insisted in his re.
quiremcnts,