Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1870-03-10
THE HICKMAN CASE.
Decision of the Supreme Court Of the
Uaited States.


Uhited States.
James Hickman, Plaintiff in error, VS..
Edward c. Belts, Thomas s. McCalley,
ct al-In error TO the District COETt OF
the United States for the Northern Dis
tTict of Alabama.
Mr.. Justice Swayne delivered the
opinion of the Court.
This is a writ Of error to the Dis
trict Court Of the United States for
the Northern District of Alabama.
The plaintiff in error sued defend
ants in error for malicioqsly causing
him to be arrested, imprisoned, and
prosecuted for a criminal Ofiense
without probable cause.
The facts disclosed in the record, so
far as it is necessary to state them, are
as follows
During the late civil war the Rebel
government established acOurt known
as the "District Court of the COnfed-
crate States of America for the North
ern District of Alabama" In that
court the plaintiff in error was indict-
ed for treason against the Confederate
States. The Indictment alleged that
troops Of the United States were in the
Northern District of Alabama engaged
in hostile enterprise against the Con-
tederate States, and that Hickman "did
traitorOusly then and there assemble
and continue with the said troops of
the said United States in the pros
ecutiOn of their said eXDedi-
ton against the Confederate States;
and then and there, with force and
arms, and with the traitOrous inten-
tiOn OF cooperating with the said
troops of the United States in ehecting
the object of the said hostile expedI-
ton, did array and dispose himself
with them in a hostile and wariike
against the said Confederate
States; and then and there, with force
and arms, in pursuance of such his
traitorOus intentions, he, the said
James Hickman, with the said per-
sons, SO Aforesaid, assembled, armed,
and arrayed in manner aforesaid,
and traitorousIy did levy
war against the said Confederate
States"
Upon this indictment a warrant was
issued for the arrest OF Hickman. He
was arrested and imprisoned accord
ingly. He applied 10 the defendant,
Jones, who assumed to act as Judge
Of the Court, to be allowed to give
bail. Jones rejected the application
and Temanded him to prison. He
was subsequently tried, acquitted and
he alleges that the pro-
ceeding was without probable cause
and malicious. Moore was the clerk
of the pretended court. The name of
Regan is signed to the indictment as
District Attorney, and he conducted
the trial. Robert w. Coltart was
Deputy Marshal, and Clay was the
editor and publisher of the Huntsville
Confederate, a newspaper through
which it was alleged he melted the
by means Of malicious at
lacks upon Hickman designed to pro-
duce that result.
The other defendants were men,
bers Of the grand jury by which the
Indictment was found.
Testimony was given tending to
show that the plaintiff sympathized
with the rebellion and participated in
It while the rebel power predominated
in North Alabama, both before and
after its first invasion by the forces Of
The United States.
The court instructed the jury,
among other things, as follows:
"If, in the case at the bar, you be-
ieve that the acts and speeches of the
plaintiff, upon which the defendants
rely to prove his completely with the
were the result of anything
less than a fear that if he did not so
speak and act, his life or his liberty or
his property would be sacrificed
70 his silence or his omission, you will
ind a verdict for the defendants.
"If, on the other hand, you believe
hat these acts of apparent completely
with the rebellion were performed by
he plaintiff under the influence Of an
honest and rational apprehension that
% do otherwise would expose him to
or prosecution, or TO loss
IF life, liberty or property, and that,
these acts of affilia-
ion with the rebel community in
which he lived, he was always at
heart honestly and truly loyal to the
government Of his country, he is en-
titled to your verdict"
The jury We're further instructed
hat it was their duty to acquit the de-
endants, r. w. Coltart and Clay.
Exceptions were duly taken by the
and the case is brought here
or review.
We have to complain in this case,
IS we do frequently, of the manner in
which the bill of exceptions
las been prepared. 1t contains all
he evidence adduced on both sides
md the entire charge Of the court.
This is a direct violation of the rule
IF this court upon this subject. We
nave looked into the evidence and the
;harge only so far as was necessary to
snable US to fully comprehend the
points presented for our consideration
thus in effect reducing the bill to
he dimensions which the rule pre-
3cribes. No good result can follow in
my case from exceeding this stand
trd. Our labors are unnecessarily in
,reased, and the case intended to be
presented is not unfrequently obscured
md confused by the excess.
The rebellion out of which the war
yrew was without any legal sanction.
In the eye Of the law it had the same
as If it had been the insur-
-ection of a county or smaller munich
pal territory against the State to which
t belonged. The proportions and du-
,ation of the struggle did not affect its
character. Nor was there a rebel gov
srnment de .JdctO in such a sense as to
give any legal efficacy to its acts. 1t
was not recognized by the national,
nor by any foreign governments. 1t
was not at any time in possession of
The capital of the nation. 1t did not
Ior a moment displaee the rightful
government. That government was
always in existence, always in the
regular discharge of its functions, and
exercising all its military
power to put down the resistance to
its authority in the insurrectionary
States. The union Of the States, for