The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1863-11-26

SUesTTTofes m THE ARMv-Impor.ant Adl~as
Corpus Case.-An Interesting aud important HAIRS,
cmpus case was tried before Judge Marshall, In t,a
Circuit Court Of Lyachburs, last week. We find
the following particulars In the Republicans
The petiii oaer, Philip r. Vith~rs, a ci,izrn Of
Lynehburs, having been arrested by the enrolling
officer, Major Charles 8. Peyton, ~ a conscripi
claimed his exemption on the ground Of having
furnished substitute in Co. u, tlt Va. regiment.
The paper produced IN establish the claim 10 eu,
commanding Co. n, lIth Va. regiment, and ap.
ornv"d by Kirk Otey, Major commanding ilth Va.
regiment.
liz the return In the writ, Maier Psv,on aile.ca
that the wh0ie transaction Was irrps snIar tieka,
fraudulent and void, and In accordance with the
laws and orders On the subject of substitution
That Sparrsi d. Wright, who sisnrd the said pa
per as I'd Lient. commanding, and Major Otev,
who signed as Major commanding the iiih Va
regiment, were not with their commands ut the
time OF signing the same, but were In the city of
lynchburg, and their commands were with the
army nf the Potomac. more than one hundred
miles distant; and that neither the said Wifhers nor
said Farley, the alleged substitute, were ever with
or ia any sense members of 10, II, Nth Va. regi
neht that the said substitute should have b en-
carried either to the regiment or to camp Of in
strrctinn, and there mustered In, and that neither
said Wratt nor said Otey had any right or author
ity 10 receive substitutes in service.
A good deal of Testimony was Introduced In sup
port Of the allegations OF the return, showing that
both Wright and Ofay We're in Lyme chbugg al the
time of signing tue paper ana receiving the sub
stitntr, and that M such substitute WH Farley,
mentioned In the discharge, had ever been duty
with the company. Testimony was also Introduced
70 establish the gennnsnrss Of the paper upon
which the discharge was claimed. 4 papeg was
also Introduced, signed by Afa3pr Ofry, pafp0Ttins
10 be n descriptive list at said Farley, and re-
reipt for him from Col ]. e. Shields, Comma ntan,
Of COnscripts.
The case was fully heard as an imporant one
upon which large number OF Others Of a simila,
character depend, and ably argued for two da vs. by
James Garland, Robert Whitehead, and ED.
Christian, Esqs., for the petitioner, and NJ. II.
CFink for the Government.
Judge Marshall delivered an able and elaborate
opinion In the case on yesterday, discussing nti
siiitiOn was illegal, inegular, and void that the
Lieutenant and Major signing were net in com
mand at the time Of signing, and, under the laws
and regulations, had no authority to receive sub
stiiules In the army; that the principal sh0uiI
have carried his substitute to the regiment, IL he
was member Of the company and, II no, "a mem
ber of the company. he should have carried him IN
camp OF instruction, rs prescribed hy the orders
nf the Adjutant and Inspector General of the &. s.
Army; that the descriptive list signed bv Major
otey was inconsistent with the first paper
upon which the petitioner claimed his discharge,
and that no such man was receiptrd for by Major
Otcy was ever in the possession or under the con
troll Of Col. J. q. Shields, and that the petitioner
having failed to show that he had ever furnished
substitute who was at any time on duty with the
company, or 10 bring himself within the equity
of the law, must he renanded TO The custody of
the enrolling officer for service in the army, which
was accordingly done. The decision Is an iupor-
tant one, ting many Others of similar chaTac
ter. We understand that Lieut.. Wright gave
large number Of such discharges for sub-titntions
An appeal has been taken by the counsel for Mr.,
WtfhpTs,