HABEAS CORPUS 1767

appear that such person is detained without legal warrant or authority
he shall immediately be released or discharged, or if the court or judge
shall deem his detention to be lawful and proper he shall be remanded
to the same custody, or admitted to bail if his offense be bailable, and if
bailed the court or judge shall take a recognizance to answer in the proper
court and shall transmit the same to such court.

If a prisoner is brought up on habeas corpus, and it appears that the offense was
committed in another county, he may be recognized to appear before the court having
jurisdiction. Parrish v. State, 14 Md. 245.

The facts being admitted, it is competent for judge to decide whether there is sufficient
legal cause for detention of prisoner. McDonald v. State, 45 Md. 98 (note).

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

See notes to sec. 3.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 11. 1912, sec. 12. 1904, sec. 12. 1888, sec. 12. 1813, ch. 175.

11. Any person at whose instance or in whose behalf a writ of habeas
corpus has been issued may controvert by himself or his counsel the truth
of the return thereto or may plead any matter by which it may appear
that there is not a sufficient legal cause for his detention or confinement,
and the court or judge, on the application of the party complaining or
the officer or other person making the return shall issue process for wit-
nesses or writings returnable at a time and place to be named in such proc-
ess, which shall be served and enforced in like manner as similar proc-
ess from courts of law is served and enforced, but before issuing such
process the court or judge shall be satisfied by affidavit or otherwise of
the materiality of such testimony.

The facts stated in return may be controverted, and it may be shown that no judg-
ment or execution in fact exists, or that the court had no jurisdiction; but if there is
a judgment by a competent court, then there can be no inquiry as to whether judg-
ment is erroneous. Habeas, corpus is not a writ of error. Ex Parte Maulsby, 13 Md.
637. See also State v. Glenn, 54 Md. 574.

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

An. Code, 1924, sec. 12. 1912, sec. 13. 1904, sec. 13. 1888, sec. 13. 1809, ch. 125, sec. 2.

1880, ch. 6, sec. 13.

12. If the court granting the said writ of habeas corpus shall not be
in session at the return thereof or if the judge granting the said writ of
habeas corpus shall be absent at the return thereof the said writ shall be
returned before any court or judge which or who would originally have
had power or jurisdiction to issue such writ under the provisions of sec-
tions 1 and 3 if application in the particular case had been originally
made to such court or judge.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 13. 1912, sec. 14. 1904, sec. 14. 1888, sec. 14. 1886, ch. 255.

13. No person who shall have been delivered upon a habeas corpus
shall afterwards be imprisoned or committed for the same offense other-
wise than by the order or process of the court wherein he or she shall be
bound by recognizance to appear or some other court having jurisdiction
of the cause or upon surrender by his or her bail.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 14. 1912, sec. 15. 1904, sec. 15. 1888, sec. 15. 1809, ch. 125, sec. 6.

14. If any judge, whether in court or out of court, shall refuse any
writ of habeas corpus by this article required to be granted, he shall be
liable to the action of the party grieved.