Ex parte Jones
Supreme Court of Arkansas
PETITION E0R HABEAS CORPUS. Under tbe Constitution of 1836, tbe Circuit Courts were regarded as tbe principal courts of assize of their respective counties — bad jurisdiction throughout tbe county for which it was held, and bold at tbe county seat. No other Circuit Courts were known, and we should give to tbe language tbe same meaning which it had in the minds of those who used it.
Read the full summary
PETITION E0R HABEAS CORPUS. Under tbe Constitution of 1836, tbe Circuit Courts were regarded as tbe principal courts of assize of their respective counties — bad jurisdiction throughout tbe county for which it was held, and bold at tbe county seat. No other Circuit Courts were known, and we should give to tbe language tbe same meaning which it had in the minds of those who used it. State vs. Scott, 9 Ark., 270; Allis, ex parte 12, Id., 101. The Constitution of 1868 did not continue in force any law which was opposed to the Constitution of 1836, though it might not come in conflict with its…
1Opinion of the CourtBennett, J.
Qn the 24th day of May, 1872, James N.‘ J ones filed, in this court, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging he was illegally detained by George S. Scott. The writ was issued. The return upon it states that the petitioner is held by him as keeper of the State penitentiary, by virtue of the commitment and order of the Circuit Court of the county of Sebastian, held at Fort Smith, on the 16th day of October, 1871.
To which return the petitioner files a general demurrer.
The legality of the commitment and order of the Circuit Court is only questioned by the demurrer, upon the ground that…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Burks v. WalkerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1909
- Connors v. PrattUtah Supreme Court · 1910
- Jewett v. NorrisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1926
- Robinson v. Greenwood DistrictSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1975
- Central Coal & Coke Co. v. GrahamSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.