Eastern times. [volume] (Bath, Me.) 1846-1857, 1850-11-14
An Interesting Case.

pas" in these days will be read with interest
it may not be inappropriate to sketch. some Of
the prominent facts connected with a case tina,
recently ,ranspired before our District Cour,
now in session at Wiscasset. The writ was
issued by Judge RICE, and as the District
has but recently had jurisdiction of matters Of
this nature, and the grounds of the application
being of a peculiar nature, it excited some con-
siderable interest. The circumstances were
briefly these A complaint was entered in the
Police Court, Boston, against a citizen of our
State charging him with obtaining goods in
Boston, under false pretcnces, and a warrant
for his apprehension was duly issued. Upon
this warrant, the officer made his return, 'that
he had made diigent search for the within
named person within the precints of the State,
but that he was not to be found"-which facts
being duly certified to Gov. Briggs, he issued
requisition upon Gov. Hubbard for the body
of the accused, in conformity to the laws of
our State, and of the Unitod States. Gov.
Hubbard having satisfied himself of the legali-
ty of the proceedings, issued his warrant for
the apprehension of the person named, who
was arrested in our city on the afternoon of the
same day, Saturday, Goth ult,) at too late an
hour, however. for his conveyance to Massachu-
sets that day. The arrest was made by an
agent duly empowered in the executive war
rant, and who had in his possession, at the
time of the arrest, all the papers pertaining to
the matter, including the evidence presented
10 the Executive, upon which the warrant was
issued-but the arrest being made. the pris-
oner was placed temporarily under the charge
of keeper. constable of the city. On the
day following the arrest, Sunday the pris-
oner petitioned Judge Rice for writ of ha6eas
corp~s, alleging that he was unlawfully re-
strained of his liberty, and that can attested
copy of the precept, by which he was restrain
ed"-(which our statutes require the officer to
furnish to the person whose liberty is restrain
ed, under such circunstances) had been de-
MED him-whereupon the writ was duly issued
and served upon the officer who had charge Of
the accused-it being made rcturnable "im-
mediately to the Court then in session at Wis
casset''-in accordance with which the officer
brought into Court. early on Monday morning,
the accused. 1t is made the duty, (by our Re
vised Statutes of the officer upon whom the
writ of habeas is served, to state at large, the
authority, and the true and whole cause of
such imprisonment or restraint upon which the
party is detained" in his return upon the writ.
Instead of complying with which require
ment, the officer simply justified his restraint
"as keeper, appointed by A. B. acting under a
warrant from the State"
This was the position of affairs when the par
ties came into Court on the morning of the
following Monday. To allow the counsel an
opportunity to investigate the papers, &C., the
Court assigned P. NJ. as the hour for hear
ing-HENRY c. LOWELL, Esq, of Rockland,
having been employed as counsel for the petit
toner, (the person restrained of his liberty,)
and ALERT MERRILL, Esq, of Bath, appearing
for the other parties.
1t being incumbent upon the party claiming
to restrain the body, TO open the case, Mr..
Merrill briefly stated the points upon which the
process was justified-citing the Law of'93
and the statutes of our State, and putting in
the executive warrant, with the officers return,
contending that they were sufficient and con-
elusive, and that the whole proceeding was
but the enforcement of well settled principle
adopted in accordance with the comfy of
nations and the good faith existing between
the several States.
Mr.. Lowell, in reply, commented very Sc
verely upon the informality and inaccuracy of
the entire proceeding, contending principally
that the executive warrant was grossly defec-
tive, in that it failed to specify, with sufficient
precision, the offence alleged to be committed
where, when, or how-and by whom-and
that the officers return was also insufficient in
the law. Cases were cited, going to show that
great particularly, as to preliminary proceed
ings, had been required in other States, and
most effectively was it urged by the able coun-
sci tina; in a matter of such magnitude, involv-
ing the liberty of citizen, the slightest infor-
malty should be fatal.
Without attempting to enumerate the other
positions Of Mr.. Lowell, which we consider of
minor Importance, we would award to the able
counsel the need which his effort won, that of
being comprehensive, able and lawyer like
argument.
The positions of Mr.. Lowell we're also ably
commented on by the other counsel. who cited
authorities to show that the executive warrant
was conclusive, and was a sufficient iustifica
ton OF the officer-and that no imprisonment
can be illegal, when the process is a ustifica-
ton of the officer. II was also contended. that
as this was preliminary proceeding, no partic-
ular specification of offence committed was re-
qui.ed-t that the accused was not upon trial.
and that when put upon trial, the charges
would be specifically made.
The Attorney General Henry Tallman, ESQ.
being in Court. was called upon. as prosecuting
officer of the State. to express any objections
ne might have to an arrest of the process. Mr..
L. replied briefly. intimating that the alleged
lnformaiitles were in his opinion insufficient to
justify an arrest of the process, and the dis.
charge OF the prisoner. As to the warrant. he
considered it in the nature of all other warrants
for criminal arrests-it is not usual to specify
in them the charges with particularly. At
this stage of proceedings, the hour of adjourn
me' having arrived, the Judge withheld his
opinion until morning.
The opinion of the Judge was clear and COM
prehensive-occupying about two hours in its
delivery. He reviewed the whole subject, and
commented at large upon the authorities that