Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1867-02-01
Reported az the Journal.
APPRENTICES.
In porfa1,t Decision Of the Supreme Court.
Ambrose VS.. Russell.

/ The petitioners are persons OF color, who,
| together with their parents, had been slaves,
and were emancipated by the Ordinance of
/ the Convention. They were taken IN GUS
| todv by tho defendant Russell, who claim
| ed to hold them as apprentices under an
order Of the County Court Of Robson, pur-
porting to bind the petitioners to him. me
petitioners obtained a writ of h06e0s corpus
returnable before Judge Gillian, who, up
on the hearing, remanded them to the GUS
! tody of the defendant. --.-e.... ......
| Two questions are involved in the case {:
l. Had the Judgc, upon the hearing, the
right to look behind the order of the Coun-
tv Court, binding out the petitioners
His Honor was Of the opinion, that he
was precluded by the order, and had no
right to look to the merits Of the case.
In this we tiink there was error. The
defendant who claims the right to restrain
the liberty Of the petitioners, must show
his authority And when he shows the
order Of the County Court, the petitioners
| have the right to reply, that the order is
void. And this they may do, either by
| showing that they were not such persons as
the Court had the power to bind out at all,
OF that they had no notice Of the proceed
| ings against them, and, thefore, no cppor-
| tunity OF being heard. If Judgment be rem
dered by Il Court having no jurisdiction, or
| against a person who has 10 notice TO de-
| fen1 his rights, Il is no Indictment at ALL
Staling8 VS.. Gully ,, Jones II. 344. And
in Price vs.. Hight 8, Jones r. 265 This
| Court did look behind the order Of the
| County Court, 10 see whether tie County
| Court had the power to make the order.
! i.e. had jurisdiction over the petitioner.
IL. Does the fact that the petitioners had
no notice OF the proceedings against them
and were not present when the order Of the
County Court was made, make the order of
binding void
We think it does. The constitution and
laws Of the country guarantee the rrinci-
pie, that no freeman small be Invested Of a
right by the Judgment OF Court, unless
| he shall have been made party to the pro-
ceedings in which it shall have been OBJ
| tanned
Armstrong Us. ILarshan, / Dew Z. 1877
In all PROCEEDINGS OF a judicial nature. it is
necessary that the person whose RIGHTS are
to be affected should. in some way. be q
partv to the PROCEEDINGS. 1t is rot s!,fIi-
i cient that the Court sh0uld have iurisdic-
ton of the subject matter 1t must also have
| jurisdiction of the person. Il is a clear
dictate Of Justice. that no man shall be de-
Driyed Of his rights of person or .Dr0perty.
without the privilege Of being heard. -
StalIiDos vs.. Gully. svDya. And, il is well
settled that Indictment without service of
$500, ,-l;1
~ ~ " G-.,,. (,,,,7; > To,,oo
r. 1913, is relied on as showing. that Meth
+n ~ tn 1900 +" h '1r'r nr
- , ~ I''C cont y" III -
=; no ti1o tilo+ =, five oo;nion Iol;,,er.
"a n,"t oosa - io ~ i'-t tIa+ :.tboro
| j. nothin,r in fhc s+a+,7ta raunirino tbe
,,raaonca of tha n,.o}>aT ,yha me- hi9d;no.
ta I(- r1aca thon1h IL j. ns,1al . RIlt tho
cane "a not rnoITira that ,9oin+ 70 ha de-
ciJo5 mai ca9n 1ros +his An ornboD had
bean hound nnt Inv tho Cont. and \ Hind
1860, Mid +o tI,n Con,+ 70 1ocato +Lo
IrIlnr hin1d{incr ont tIIn ornhon on5 +o hind
! lin ~ that tI,ird ,1arsoI The ornbon was
not nloyiner il tha matter himself and Of
conrse. the Court refused to Interfere at
the instance Of 4 third person, who had no
interest in the matter, So that we cannot
give to that case tho force Of = decision
anon this question. The case before MS is
at the instance Of = person whose liberty
has been affected by the order and he has
tbe 1ioht ia raise fhe Question. And we
| ~ :.1o:. - 1 Il II. IL = l..