The eastern clarion. [volume] (Paulding, Miss.) 1837-1863, 1859-09-14

the slaves IN custody By virtue Of m order Of commit
nthL msde ny the Circuit Court Of Tallahatchie
oouhy, .t december Term 1855, to await their trial
on a ciaIe OF Advlslng and conspiring make in
slrTecton ior which they had been indicted by the
~ Ib y Ii 1ousha County. Upon the hearing
~ wy wiz we evidence introduced the record Of
the indictment referred To- and the r.rooaa5irSa
thercnpoh 10 the Circuit Court by which il appears
Itt tle lhhiclInent contained three counts-that
demurrer was filed to the whole Indictment and sus-
I'ht as 10 me hrst TWO counts, hut oyerruled as 10
IN" thrd ana IN that condition that the Indictment
was pending in the Circuit Cont And tharennoT
the Judge dismissed the writ Of Habeas C5r1,,W and
remanded the prisoners 70 custody. and that iudr-
ment l. now sought to be reviewed in this Cont
preliminary objectonIs taken to the procedure
the part Of the state. which We think dsposes ~
the 1t j. nov before us.
1t appears that the slaves were committed upon an
indictment charging that "they did unlawflliy mali
ciOusly and elonOusy consult advise and c',nspire
together with other slaves, whose names are m
known with the intent 10 resist the In, ri artbi
Of one John II. MARS. who then and there the
Oyerseer Of all the slaves aforesaid hy arning them
selves with Divers clubs, sticks, hatchets scyhs
| blades, and rocks and assembling themselves to-
gether for the purpose Of resisting the aforesaid au-
thorIty in SAID county. contrary to the Statute aud
| against the peace and dignity Of the State" &c.
The HabeIS Corpus act provides that il shall not
authorize the discharge out Of prison" s. of sares
after commitment, indictment for am felony
Code 365, Art 3. And hence It Is insisted that the
| writ was improperly granted in this and should
have been dismissed that ground. On the contra
nv. it's said that the Indictment charges offense
| for which these slaves were punishable by indct-
ment and hence that the indictment must be regard
| ed a a nudity.
| been adludged good ana sufficient by the Court in
which pending and that the case stood upon that
Judgment in that Court. when the writ OF H1be1s C0T
puS sued Until that Judgment wa- set aside
or reversed 1t was the aw Of the and il was not
competent 10 call II IN question upon the writ OF Ha
bsas CWpps and upon an adverse decision being made
thereupon to bring the question to this Court by wit
Of error 70 that Judgment For that would be yirtu
ally make the writ Of Hdbeds Corpus wTt Of error
10 the judgment Of the Circuit Court and call upon
the Judge to reverse the Judgment upon the demur-
and declare the Indictment there duly pending in
| lu=IIfnCeUt.
writ Of error to the judgment on the H1be1s Corpus,
j required virtually 10 reverse the Judgment on the
demurrer when that judgment . not before us. All
this l. mauife-ty irregular. ana not 70 be tolerated
| Tho INDICTMENT 81 The Cirruit Court holding The IN
dictment sufficient IN law must he taken correct
until it he reversed; and that can only BE- done by
this Court when it shall be brought before u by writ
Of error.
The evil consequences arising from the course Of
proceeding in rcsOrng 10 the writ Of Hahea- Corpus
| in cases like this are most obvious:
| LIST. The Judgment Of the Circuit Court upon the
demurrer. the writ be sustained would be- reversed
without writ Of error extending to IT, In law 1t
mains IN force What then 10 he the course Of pro
ceeding OF the Court upon the Indictment II would
be-, to proceed with the cause treating the Indictment
| a. sufficient under the Judgment previously pro
nounced. But the Court would find that the prison.
had been taken from the custody and we're not in
the power Of the Court having been DISCHARGED from
PRISON under the writ Of Habeas Corpus. such 8
state Of case would present great anomaly.
I'd. But TO determine the Indictment 70 he iusufi
. Gent and TO discharge the prisoners on H1bsGa
CUpnS ON that ground and without hearing the evi
dence upon which the charge was founded would b
case the only question presented would be the sufi
! cheney Of the Indictment. II might be that the in
i / dIctment in its form l. Insufficient and on tia
! ground that il would be liable 10 be auashcd ans
yet there might be sufficient upon the facts o
, the to keep the prisoners in custody. he pro
ceeded against upon another Indictment which nigh
be properly framed to meet the Oiiense Of which In.
prisoner were really guilty. And yet in such cas-,
# ana a. ih- case D. here scented, the prisoner
- would Doe discharged, and might be placed beyon,
4 the reach Of punishment. simply because the ndict
# not technically sufficient to charge then
q with the otfense intended 10 be charged II such
course be ustItahlc upon sound principles not onl
- the sufclency Of all indictments for capital often
~ but the correctness Of the decisions Of the Court
:. where they are pending adIudgng them to be sufi
q Gent are subject to the determination Of Judge
# chambers, with power TO override in this informs
mode OF proceeding the Judgment Of the prope
Court duly pronounced; and the same principl
/ would give to Judge sitting R1bods Corpus In
n power 10 annul the Judgment ofhe Circuit Court NJ
p on final conviction. and this the ground that til
~ indictment Insufficient in charging no ofense
a 1t Is clear that such questions were not intended
, be embraced and determined in the proceeding {
4 Habols COrpuS.
y We are therefore Of opinion that where there hs
been an Indictment, which has been held hy ii
proper Court To be good. and which Judgment stand
: in fun face; or when the prisoner without sue
p judgment claims his discharge HabedS CORN
"A merely on the ground Of the nsuffciency Of the IL
n dIcment, without the abduction Of the evidence
should not be held in custody in the matter: IN eithS
Of such eases the writ Of HsbeGs Corpus should n,
p, he entertained.
d, II follows from this view that the writ Of Hdbet
IS Corpus was properly dismissed, and the iudgmeul
\ affirmed. HANDY.