Case Name: THE STATE v. HUNT
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1795-04
Citations: 1 N.J.L. 332
Docket Number: 
Parties: [287] THE STATE v. HUNT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 332–333

Head Matter:
[287] THE STATE v. HUNT.
1. The court from which a certiorari issues is to decide on its legality. The inferior court must obey.
2. Where the Sessions have declined returning an indictment upon a certiorari, a rule to return, &e., or show cause whv an attachment should not issue, is a proper course of proceedings.
Certiorari to Justices of the Sessions of Hunterdon county.
In the vacation between November and April Terms, a certiorari issued in this case, directed to the Sessions of Hunterdon, to remove an indictment which had been found there against Hunt, for an assault and battery. The certiorari was taken out by the attorney general.
The Sessions, by a paper annexed to the certiorari, subscribed and sealed by the justices, represented to the court that before the writ was presented to the Sessions the said Hunt, being present in court, requested the court that he might be charged on his indictment, and accordingly was ordered to be charged, and that after such order the said justices did not conceive it to be consistent with the laws of New Jersey to allow the said writ of certiorari before the said Hunt had pleaded to the indictment.
Woodruff, (attorney general,)
the first day of the term took a rule upon the justices to return the indictment, or show cause why an attachment should not issue.
On the day for showing cause, Stewart, who appeared for the Court of Sessions, objected; that a rule to show cause was not the proper notice in this case, but that there should have been a special notice served on the justices.

Opinion:
Pee Cue.
A rule to show cause is a proper notice in all cases.
Leake and Woodruff,, for the rule, cited
2 Hawk. 417, b. 2, c. 27, § 62; 4 Bl. Com. 320, 321, to show that a certiorari was a supersedeas ; and that after it was presented all further proceedings were void. A case, also, of The State v. Bowen, in the minutes of May Term, 1781, was cited, where, for proceeding after a certiorari, the court ordered an attachment in the first instance against the justices.
[288] Per Cur. This is a mild way of proceeding. The court that issues the writ are alone to decide upon its legality. The inferior court are to obey.
Rule absolute.