9

ing. [See Appendix]. The arguments of counsel were heard
on the 9th and 10th, and on the 13th of November, the Judge
gave the following decision, establishing the right of Messrs.
Young and Valiant, the Commissioners from the date of the
appointment.

THE POLICE COMMISSIONERS AND SHERIFF
Decision in the Habeas Corpus Oases.

OPINION.

In the matter of the application of James Young, Wm. Thomas
Valiant and Wm. Thomson, for writ of Habeas Corpus.

Under the Code of Public General Laws jurisdiction and
power are conferred on me, as one of the Judges of the Court
of Appeals, to grant the writ of habeas corpus—Article forty-
three, section one. By the fifteenth section of the same
Article, any Judge, whether in court or out of court, who shall
refuse the writ to a party entitled is made "liable to the ac-
tion of the party grieved."

This great writ, "employed for the summary vindication
of the right of personal liberty when illegally restrained,"
is guarranteed to every citizen in the most solemn form under
the constitution and laws as a writ of right which no Judge
is at liberty to refuse in any case where, by the law, the peti-
tioner is entitled to it.

By the act of 1862, chapter 36, which repealed the third
section of article 43 of the code, it was enacted.

"It any person be committed or detained for any crime, or
under any color or pretence whatsoever, he, or any one on his
behalf, may complain by petition to any one of the courts or
judges mentioned in the first section of this article, and said
court or judge shall foithwith grant a writ of habeas corpus,
directed to the officer or other person in whose custody the
party detained shall be, returnable immediately before the
said court or judge granting the same; provided, the person
detained be not committed or detained for treason or felony,
plainly expressed in the warrant of commitment, or be not
convict or in execution by legal process."

The act then goei on to provide that if the person be de-
tained under color of a warrant of commitment, the petition
presented by him shall be accompanied by a copy of the war-
rant of commitment or detainer, or by an affidavit, that a copy
thereof was demanded of the person having him in custody,
and the same was neglected or refused to be given.

In these cases the petitions were accompanied with copies
of the warrants of commitment, certified by the clerk of the
Criminal Court of Baltimore, and the causes of detention not
appearing to be within the exceptions in the act of 1862, the
writs were issued.
2