State v. Merrick
Supreme Court of Louisiana
N an application for a mandamus. In support of the application for a mandamus in (he above entitled case, the court are referred to the following authorities, to wit: 1st. Martin’s Reports, by Morgan, marginal page 217. 2d. Hale’s Pleas of the Crown, pp. 148-129. Blaclcstone’s Commentaries by Chitty, vol. 2, pp. marginal, 298-9. 7th An.
Read the full summary
N an application for a mandamus. In support of the application for a mandamus in (he above entitled case, the court are referred to the following authorities, to wit: 1st. Martin’s Reports, by Morgan, marginal page 217. 2d. Hale’s Pleas of the Crown, pp. 148-129. Blaclcstone’s Commentaries by Chitty, vol. 2, pp. marginal, 298-9. 7th An. LongwortJipraying for a writ of habeas corpus, pp. 247-3 -9. In this case, the court quotes the language of Chief Justice Marshall, as follows, to wit: “ Chief Justice Marshall declared upon the trial of Colonel Burr, that the court had power to bail a person…
1Opinion of the Court
Spoífokd, J.
On the 7th of May, 1855, James Bell was imprisoned in the parish jail of East Feliciana, under a bench warrant, which recited that an indictment had been found against him for the crime of murder.
On the same day ho applied to the District Judge for a writ of 7taleas corpus, alleging that ho was entitled to his liberty, on giving bail, or to an entire discharge.
The writ was granted, and on the 9th of May came on for trial, when, it being- conceded by counsel that the warrant upon which said Bell was detained in custody was in due form, the prisoner was remanded to custody to answer…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Ewing v. StandeferSupreme Court of Alabama · 1850
- Territory v. BenoitSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1810
- People v. McLeodNew York Supreme Court · 1841
- Hight v. United StatesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1845
3Cited by3 opinions
- State Ex Rel. McIsaac v. SiglerSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1959
- State v. PichonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1921
- United States v. QuirozCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2025