Court Opinion

ID: 9416344
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 19:41:48.865148+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:44.919332
License: Public Domain

Mr Justice M’Lean
dissented, on the ground that where a defendant had been committed by the marshal on a capias ad satisfaciendum, before the return day of the writ, it is not the practice either in this district or in the state of Maryland, as he understood it, to bring up the defendant, that he may be prayed in commitment: but that it is the practice, under the construction of the Maryland law, where a defendant has been arrested on a capias ad satisfaciendum, and permitted to go at large until the return day of the writ, to bring his body into court on such day, that it may be prayed in commitment.
On consideration of the petition filed in this case in behalf of the petitioner, and of the arguments of counsel as well for the United States as for the petitioner thereupon had, it is the opiniou of this court that the writ of habeas corpus ought to issue as prayed for. Whereupon, it is considered, ordered and. adjudged by this court, that a writ of habeas corpus be forth-, with issued, directed to the marshal of the United States for the district of Columbia, commanding him to have the body of the said Tobias, with the-day and cause of his caption and detention, immediately after the receipt of the writ, to do,- receive and submit to all and singular those things which the court shall consider concerning him in this behalf, and to have then and there the said writ with his doings thereon.
To the writ of habeas corpus the marshal of the district of Columbia made the following return:
Henry Ashton, Esq. marshal .of the United States for the district of Columbia, having read in open court and filed the following writ, together with his return thereon, viz. “ United States of America, ss. The president of the United States, to the marshal of the United States for the district of Columbia, greeting: You. arc hereby commanded that you have the body of Tobias Watkins, detained under your custody, as it- is *584said, under a safe and secure conduct, together with the day and cause of his caption and detention, by-whatsoever name he shall be called in the same, before the supreme court of the United States, now sitting in the capitol of the United- States in the city of Washington, being the present seat of the national government, immediately after the receipt of this writ, to do, receive and submit to all and singular those things which the said supreme court shall then and there consider concerning him in this behalf, and have then and there this Writ with your doings thereon. Witness, &c.
Return of the marshal. “ To the honourable the judges of the supreme court of the United States. The marshal of the district of Columbia, in obedience to the writ of habeas corpus issued, by the authority of your honours, now produces into your honourable court the body of Tobias Watkins, who has been in his custody ever since he came into office, delivered over to him by his predecessor, Tench Ringgold, in jail; he stating that he had been held in his custody by virtue of three writs of capias ad satisfaciendum at the suit of the United States, and by virtue of. a writ of capias ad respondendum, at the suit of one William Cox, upon which said last mentioned writ he the said Watkins had been prayed into commitment by the said Cox, and had been ordered into commitment by the honourable judges of the circuit court of the United States for the district of Columbia, sitting for Washington county, by whose authority all the said writs had been issued. That being satisfied of the correctness of the -representations of his said predecessor, he continued to detain the said Watkins in custody without any complaint or allegation of any illegality or wrong in the said confinement until the rule was moved for in your honourable court, at its present term, at the instance of said Watkins, for cause to be shown by the attorney-general of the United States why a writ, of habeas corpus should not be granted to bring the said Watkins before your honours, together with the cause of his detention. He further shows .to your honours, that since the said rule was moved for, the writ of. Cox, as aforesaid, has been dismissed; and from that time to the time of his receiving the said writ of habeas corpus, he held him in custody by virtue only of the three-writs of capias ad satisfaciendum at (he.suit of the United States, considering it improper to discharge him *585pending- the deliberations of your honours upon the legality or illegality of his detention under and by virtue of those writs last mentioned.”
On consideration whereof, and after due deliberation thereupon had, it is now here considered, ordered and adjudged by this court, in this behalf, that the said prisoner, Tobias Watkins, be, and he is hereby discharged from confinement under, the said several three writs of capias ad satisfaciendum at the' suit of the United "States, in. the said return of the marshal mentioned.
After the discharge of Mr Watkins, by this order of ihe court, ou the 19th day of February 1833, lie was, on the- same day, arrested and confined by the marshal of the district of Columbia, under three several writs of capias ad satisfaciendum "issued. on the same judgments, under which he had been previously - detained in prison. These writs were dated on the 19th "of February 1833, and were issued by order of the district attorney of the United States for the district of Columbia; and were returnable at the next term of the circuit court of the district.
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus, setting forth this airest and his imprisonment under it, was presented by Mr Watkins; and a rule on the attorney-general was, on motion, granted, .to show cause why the same should not issue.
After argument of this rule, by Mr Coxe and Mr Brent, for. the relator; and by Mr Taney, the attorney-general of the United States, and Mr Key, the attorney of the United States for the district of. Columbia; the rule was discharged: “the court being equally divided in-opinion as to the question whether this court ought to award a writ of habeas corpus, as prayed in the case by the pctitioncr’'(a).

 At the-March term 1833 of the circuit court of the United States for the county of'Washington in the district ol’ Columbia, Mr Watkins was brought up on a writ of habeas corpus awarded by that court, and was discharged, The.very learned opinion of the court, delivered by the chief justice of the circuit court, will be found in Ihe appendix to this volume.