The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-10-13

have right to be heard according to the forms Of law;
were che here ~ witness called party her identity
posed to b within her knowedee. But records can
not be opened to stranger who volunteers to US
suggestion, TO what may have been errors and
know that the writ of habess corpus can only be in
voked BY the party who l. restrained Of liberty ny
one in his behalf kno r. too that it has been
the reproach Of the English courts that they have
willingly exaced proof that the application suthor
lied BY the spgreved party before permitting the writ
think avoided this The writ issues here when
il shown BY affidavit that Its benecent is
without petition from the party himself
whom he had delegated to represent him. His very pre-
sence in court to demand the writ you'd in some sort
negative the restraint which his petition must alege. In
the urgent cases. those In which delay would be dis
astrous forcible abduction, secret imprisonment and
the like the very grievance under which he is suffering
precludes the possibility of his applying in person
stut a represe NATIVE The American books full
Of casesthey are within the experience of prac
toner at the bar-in which the writ has issued
at the instance of third persons, who had other
interest right in the latter than what every
refer to the have quoted from in Mason aud the
Of Stacy in 10 Johnson for illustrations Of this
practice.
the writ asked for by intermeddling srsngcrone
who had authority TO intervene and whee interven
for the defendant to whom the writ is addressed to al
lege want of authority In the relaor The motion to
quash cannot be tho act of volunteer. Still less
ii come to by written suggestion from without
jurisdiction in the of the party who is alleged to
be under consran and whose very denial that she IL
may be only proof that the cOnstraint IL effectua
may add that | have examined all the authorities
which brought before me by the learned counsel
with most OF them familiar before. But there not
among them which, in my judgment, conflicts with
the views have expressed.
The application to enter this paper among the records
of the Court must therefore be refused
On the conclusion Of the delivery Of this opn-
ion, John Cadwaliader, Ia member Of the bar,
but not engaged in this case in order to fse
impression from the public mind said from his recoec
ton Of the circumstances attending the commitment Of
Passmore williamson proposition made to amend
the return to the writ when Judge Kane replied: "
will not receive amendment now but will be prepared
to receive it when the record has been completed No
such motion was subsequently made and the public Inn
preston that permission to amend refused is not
warranted by facts.
Judge Kane replied that his (Mr Cadwallader's) i'm
preston correct He had been prepared to
supplementary return from Mr. Williamson's counsel
but none had been offered
Mr.. Cadwaader suggested that addition be made to
the opinion Of the Court, embracing the remarks Of
member Of the bar not engaged in the and the reply
Of the Judge. He Induced to make the suggestion
by the best feeling towards worthy but mistaken
hoping 1t might lead TO the adoption Of such
would end in his liberation.
Mr.. Cadwalader is to embody the remarks he made,
when the Judge will follow with his answer to
plete the record.
John NJ Read counsel for the petitioner said he had
listened with attention to the opinion but 1t had failed
to convince him that the petitioner and her children
not free the moment they touched the soil OF Penn
Az