HABEAS CORPUS 1765

While the court of appeals cannot issue habeas corpus, its jurisdiction being appellate,
the individual judges thereof may issue it. Ex Parte O'Neill, 8 Md. 229. See also
Ex Parte Maulsby, 13 Md. 632.

Cited but not construed in Baltimore v. Libowitz, 159 Md. 32.

See art. 3, sec. 55, and notes to art. 4, sec. 14, Md. Constitution.

An. Code, 1924, sec, 2. 1912, sec. 2. 1904, sec. 2. 1888, sec. 2. 1798, ch. 106. 1853,

ch. 238, sec. 2.

2. The writ of habeas corpus may and shall be granted by any of said
courts, or by any of the judges mentioned in the preceding section, whether
in term or vacation, upon application being made as herein directed.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 3. 1912, sec. 3. 1904, sec. 3. 1888, sec. 3. 1876, ch. 373. 1880,

ch. 6, sec. 3.

3. Any person committed, detained, confined or restrained from his
lawful liberty within this State for any alleged offense or under any color
or pretense whatsoever, or any person in his or her behalf, may complain
to the court or judge having jurisdiction and power to grant the writ of
habeas corpus, to the end that the cause of such commitment, detainer, con-
finement or restraint may be inquired into; and the said respective courts
or judges to whom such complaint is so made shall forthwith grant the
writ of habeas corpus, directed to the officer or other person in whose custody
or keeping the party so detained shall be, returnable immediately before
the said court or judge granting the same.

The doctrine that where a special, limited jurisdiction is conferred on a court, its
power to act must appear on face of proceeding, does not apply to habeas corpus.
Habeas corpus is a common law writ; its object and purpose of art. 42, explained.
Deckard v. State, 38 Md. 203.

From action of court on habeas corpus, no appeal lies. State v. Boyle, 25 Md. 520;
Coston v. Coston, 25 Md. 506; Ex Parte Coston, 23 Md. 271; Annapolis v. Howard,
80 Md. 244.

Habeas corpus is not a writ of error. If judgment of contempt is pronounced by
a court of competent jurisdiction and commitment is in due form, prisoner cannot
be discharged by reason of any alleged error or irregularity in antecedent action of
court. Ex Parte Maulsby, 13 Md. 636. See also Bell v. State. 4 Gill, 301.

Any attempted restriction upon the power of judges over the writ of habeas corpus,
is unconstitutional. This, however, does not affect other portions of the act of 1880,
ch. 6. State v. Glenn, 54 Md. 596.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 4. 1912, sec. 4. 1904, sec. 4. 1888, sec. 4. 1876, ch. 373, sec. 4.

4. The writ of habeas corpus shall be served by delivering to the officer
or other person to whom it is directed, or by leaving it at the prison or
place in which the party suing it out is detained; and such officer or other
person shall forthwith or within such reasonable time (not exceeding three
days after such service), as the court or judge shall direct, make return of
the writ, and cause the person detained to be brought before the court or
judge, according to the command of the writ; and shall likewise certify the
true causes of his detainer or imprisonment, if any, or under what color or
pretense such person is confined or restrained of his liberty.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 5. 1912, sec. 6. 1904, sec. 6. 1888, sec. 6. 1819, ch. 137, sec. 1.

5. On any application for a habeas corpus, if it shall be made to appear
to the satisfaction of the court or judge that there is probable cause for
believing that the person who may be charged with confining or detaining
the person making the application, or on whose behalf the same is made,
is about to remove the person so detained from the place where he may then
be confined or detained, for the purpose of evading any writ of habeas