The daily press. (Cincinnati [Ohio) 1859-1859, 1859-05-19
L A w r F. p O r T
SUPERIOR COURT.

DECISION IN THE HABEAs CORPUS SUED OUT BY REU-
Den JOHNSON State OF Ohio on the Relation Of heu,
statement of which appeared in a former report,
Judge storer gave an opinion. -. -. .o.,
mitment not under the proper seal, the Court held
to be merely technical and that the seal properly au
Neither could the second oGecton Insisting that the
oiense described with sufficient certainty, be
course charged on the roator, 50 far as certainty in
the abatement conccrned tho requirement OIL the
The attention Of tho Court had been called to the
fact that the arrest and examination had taken place
M no SoGnS IN he oH
miles on This was qnestion addressed to the SOUND
e abse the ought to be rsspaned whs
ever II appears unnecessary hardship ards bad been i'm
uit the individual to the jail of any county in his
district and his warrant will protect the sheriff and
session in Cincinnati there is no legal Improperly
in placing the party in the Jail Gf this county
soner TO hear and determine questions against the
relator, and to order his imprisonment ,n
IL had been assumed in the argument, that thC
Commissioner had exercised judicial functions; and
his appointment was NOT Within the terms OF the M
United States, his acts were void. How far in this
summary proceeding the Court could discuss grave
quire nor would i be decorous to pronounce Ex
CATHEDRA, what is the true limitation ot the Constl
upon which they must deternine the personal right
OF protection was to be vindicated alone by strict
adherence
he'd in the past history Of our egiSaton; and
which those Courts, whose duty II is to COZ stre the
Constitution have, In former years so ably ana Tor
| chilly maintained.
remedies given by the States TO their local tribuna
into the authority OF the Federal Courts to contro
the liberty of the cltizen and this Court would haV
az law was eonsttupioRs or not Gut they could no
| permit themselves 10 reverse the decisions Of ~
Appellate Court, while they remain the received rul
of OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES clear might be their con
| victioDs that the law had been erroneonsiy sx
| pOunded-nay, even should they be satisfied tina
| public sentiment demanded u re-cNamination Of tn
| doctrine. Any other course would produce not re
The Court was Of opinion that It was unnecessar
IN this case to decide any question connected VII
the Fugitive Slave Law; Whenever II did arise the
would feel at liberty to hear it fully discussed, and
willing to express an opinion how far that law wa
obligatory upon the State Court. Until then the
| had no intimatons to give The authority OF tn
| Of the Fugitive Slave Law. but an offence CROWN
ont Of the carrying into effect OF that law had bee
| examined and determined.
| The point urged by the relators counsel was Oyei
ruled In the lately decided in the Supreme CouT
| where the writ of habeas corpus was refused to
party charged with the rescuing of fugitive slsvI
holding would not iuterfere while tho proseci
ion was going on, as no Practical result could ioiq
from taking Jurisdiction, where the party, IL di
charged, could be at once re arrested, \, M
The relator was then relnanded to tho custody
Churchill vs. sifford. Churchill has been De
uty U. s. Marshal for the Southern District OF Obi
and sued he United States Marshal, Sifford, for 4
balance OF his salary and extra services, travellit
expenses, etc. Sford claimed balance In his fayp
In disposiDg of the case, Judge Storer said no hl
please both parties. was most probably right. !
found the accounts TO be equally balanced and d
creed that each party should pay his own costs.
I.n ,x...xx ,.o,, ,nu4,mxy r,,awx, = ,x, ,,o,,x,r