Case Name: John and William Logan ads. The State
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1814-11
Citations: 3 Brev. 415
Docket Number: 
Parties: John and William Logan ads. The State.
Judges: Colcock, Brevard, Bay,' and Smith, Js., concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 415–416

Head Matter:
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
NOV., 1814.
John and William Logan ads. The State.
John and William Logan, were committed to gaol, December, 1813 : at the spring term, 1814, whilst in gaol, they demanded their trial under the Habeas Corpus Act: in November, 1814, they were bailed under the Habeas Corpus Act; the bill of indictment was found, and given out atter they had been admitted to bail; they then demanded their trial, when the State put off the cause generally, because it was not ready : the prisoners then moved for their discharge, which was refused by the .court, from which decision they appealed. Held, that they eould not be discharged under the Habeas Corpus Act.
This was an indictment for the murder of Samuel Hairs.
It appeared, that the prisoners were committed to gaol in De. cember, 1813. At the spring term, 1814, whilst in gaol, they demanded their trial under the habeas corpus act. At that term, the presiding judge, Smith, declared the jury unlawful,'and dismissed1 them ; in consequence of which, no bill of indictment was given out" And in the fall terat, 1814, there was no'court, on account of the non-attendance of judge Brevard’, by indisposition. About the day of November, 1814, they were bailed under-the ha-beas corpus act. Last term, the bill of indictment Was found and given out, • after they had been- admitted to bail. They then demanded their trial; when the State put off the cause generally, be'cause it was not ready. ‘ The prisoners then moved for their discharge ; which, after argument, was refused by the court; from' which decision they appealed, and now moved for their discharge on the following grounds : Because, having been in confinement' when they demanded their trial, and.the State not being ready during three courts, they were entitled to it under the habeas corpus act.
Goodwyn, for the motion. Starke, Solicitor, contra¿

Opinion:
Nott, J.
The only question in this case is, whether a prisoner who has been out on bail, is entitled to his discharge under the ha-beas corpus act, after having demanded his trial ? In the case of Buyck, this question was decided against the prisoner. Since that case, the law has been considered as settled. This motion, there-' fore, must be discharged.
Colcock, Brevard, Bay,' and Smith, Js., concurred.