Norwich bulletin., 1912-08-31

question was properly raised in the trial court and was open and passed upon by said supreme judicial court. The decision in said supreme Judlclal court was adverse to the said Bertram c. Spencer. Thereafterward said case was remanded to the said superior court and judgment was rendered therein and the defendant sentenced on the 2d day of July, 1912; and all as more fully appears of record.
 And of all of the aforesaid, he, the said Bertram c. Spencer, defendant, complains and says that manifest error hath been done, wherefore he prays for writ of error to the said superior court, for the said commonwealth of Massachusetts from the supreme court of the United States, and for such fur ther processes as may cause the same to be corrected by the said supreme court of the United States. He fur ther prays that the said judgment may be accorded and the same may be re- versed and set aside.
 And thereafterward appeared said defendant, and for errors in the pro- ceedingS, the superior court of the commonw of Massachusetts with | in and for the aforesaid county of | Hampden. in the indictment, plea, pro- 1 ceedings and judgment thereupon be- l tween said commonwealth of Massa- chusetts and himself, and the several i rulings of said court thereon assigns as follows:
 | Should Have Allowed the Motion. 1. That said motion to recommit the 1 defendant should have been allowed by | said court, for the said defendant was 1 illegally returned from said Bridge water state hospital because of the order of the said superior court to cause the defendant. to be brought therefrom to the jail at said Spring l field was derogation of the defendants rights under the constitution of the United States, article 14. section 1 of 1 the amendments.
 | D. That the aforesaid motion should l have been allowed in that it appears of record that the said defendant was ordered returned from said hospital without notice to him. and was thus l deprived of life, liberty or property | without due process of law, in contra vention of article IA. section 1, of the amendments of the constitution of the United States.
 8. Said motion should have been j allowed, as the said order returning the defendant was an authority exer- cised under the state of Massachu- setts and the same was invalid under
 the constitution of the United States
 in that it deprived the defendant ot
 life or liberty without due process o1
 law.
 4. And that the said order was ar authority exercised under the state oi
 Massachusetts and deprived the de-
 fendant or life or liberty without due
 process of law. and so was invalid un-
 der the amendments to the constitu-
 ton of the United States. article II
 section l, because the defendant was
 not given hearing or any opportunity
 to be heard thereon, or any notice
 thereof.
 }. And because the said order apC
 removal deprived the defendant of hi
 privileges and immunities as a citizeI
 of the United States, and deprived hin
 of the equal protection of the laws the same having been without notic'
 to him or without a hearing or givini him an opportunity to be heard, anC
 the same was an authority exercised l under the said state of Massachusett
 was invalid, as being in contraventiol
 of the said requirements of article II
 section 1. of the amendments to tn constitution of the United States.