New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-10-10
TIE CASE or PASSMORE WILLIAMSON
PETITION OF JANE JOHNSON.

From The Philadelphia Inquirer, OF 9.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COuRr-Judge kane--
Yesterday morning petition from Jane johnson, ask
ing for the liberation of Passm re Wiliamson, was
preee pted TO Jud. ksIe by j. X Townsend aod D. N
Read. The petition se's forth The suDect mater con-
taired in her former affidavit as taken IN Bfookyn
n. T. and before published.
IL further states that she was not st the time Of eav
ing Mr. Wheeler at any time since, in any way or
marLer whatever, in the custody, power possession or
control Of MIR. Williamson nor has she re'eiyed rom
him any cons or stuctions directly or lntr city,
whittier she should 60. But claiming and believing
that she and her children free the petitioner has,
ever since Der leaving MIR. Wheeler, exercised her
right free woman, 10 90 wherever she PIE SEQ ahd
to take her Children and has not since tnst hme Deem
restrained of her liberty by any person whatever.
The petitioner further states that the ssid habeas
corpus ought TO be quasoed. under the facts above
stated.
judge Kane said he would hear argument as to
whether the petitioner had any status in court
Mr. Townsend in Offering the petition, argued that
the woman bad legal status here and should bs
heard rs petitioner lie cited several authorities 10
Read. Mr. Read said that the question was u)on the
reception of the petition lie only asked that should
fled that the party could be heard at this stage
Of the proceedings.
His ger eral principle that the writ of habeas cor
pus must always be issued by behalf OF tue party
whose liberty il restrained. 1t was known that there
u RE kinds of wrs OF hsbeas corpus in En-
gland under the statute OF Charles one OF 56tb
stst Of George JlI, and one at common law that
the writ in this must be one a. common law not
specially restrained by any statute.
Mr. X. then referred to the case of pate Srder
lisi, l2 En-. l.. & f. page g. and 10 20 Law aud
Equity 259--n the Of lunaic, wherein the rule
to show why hdbeas corpus should no, Issue TO bring
no his body dismissed, because the party had not
made any application to the court, Il shown
that he was so cOerced TO prevent his doing 80.
The law il stated by Chitty, vol l. pages ga AMI
ST. English edition. lie read the law laid down and
compiled by Il @ commentator. lie argued from thesyn
opss ia the books that the principle laid down was q
fair and legal one All the acts tend only 10 protect
The liberty Of the suhiect-and the tite of the acts
absou ely proves IT.
The writ Is ofprvege; is for aparty ree,rainef
to issue it, and not for party wishing 10 restrain
ar other, and Mr.. r. cited the Consultation OF tbs
United States and the Bill Of Rights Of the STATE of
Pennsylvania TO sustain the position.
The case of an infant TO whose custody tho fa,her
entitled was referred TO. In the case OF ~ ap'
PRENTICE he said that against bis will no master can
cell him on a writ of habeas corpus
The master has another remec y-he cannot use the
habeas corpus TO decide question OF property Mr..
r. referred 10 the case decided by Judge Rogers In
1913 in Com. vs. Robert, and to Pa. Law Journal,
Gem. against Harris, which was habeas corpus 10
bring up the body of a minor who had been an APP
prentice ard had enlisted.
The Court would not remand the apprentice to tho
custody of the MASTER leaving him 10 his sut ior lam
ages against the officer who enlisted the apprentce.
III arg ument was then cOnt,ued until eleven clock
this morning, when Mr.. Reed will resume.