Macarty's Case
Superior Court of Louisiana
Habeas Corpus. The defendant was originally committed for forgety and swindling, and an escape. The offence being alledged tq have been committed in the part of the territory of Orlean& lately taken possession of by the United States, a rule of court was obtained for his transmission, to St. Francisville.
Read the full summary
Habeas Corpus. The defendant was originally committed for forgety and swindling, and an escape. The offence being alledged tq have been committed in the part of the territory of Orlean& lately taken possession of by the United States, a rule of court was obtained for his transmission, to St. Francisville. On his way thither, he made his escape, and was brought before a French magistrate, who sent him to jail, with a mittimus written in French. moved for his discharge, stating that the mittimus was unconstitutional, and consequently null and void. By the Court. The constitution requiring that…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The word escape has a well known legal meaning. Ex vi termini, it implies a previous legal restraint; to inquire into the existence or absence of which, would be to try the prisoner on the merits, in the same manner as, on a commitment for larceny, it would be, to try whether the prisoner was not the lawful owner of the goods stated to have been stolen.
Prisoner remanded.
2Cited by2 opinions
- City of New Orleans v. HughesSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1924
- Maxent v. MaxentSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1830