In re Harris

Decision Date31 October 1870
Citation47 Mo. 164
PartiesIN THE MATTER OF J. A. HARRIS, Petitioner.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Petition for Habeas Corpus.

Baker, for petitioner.

Chas. P. Johnson, and H. B. Johnson, Attorney-General, for State.

WAGNER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The petitioner is brought into the court on a writ of habeas corpus, and alleges that he is unlawfully imprisoned and detained by L. B. Hutchinson, acting sheriff of Newton county, and therefore asks to be discharged.

It seems from the petition and the return made thereto that the petitioner was arrested on complaint and affidavit made for violating an act to prevent the introduction into this State of Texas, Mexican, or Indian cattle during certain seasons of the year, approved February 26, 1869. The papers are all in due form, and the arrest properly made in compliance with the act. The only ground urged for the discharge of the prisoner is that the law is unconstitutional and void, and that, therefore, he ought not to be detained.

The statutory provision on the subject is that “if it appears that the prisoner is in custody by virtue of process from any court legally constituted, or issued by any officer in the service of judicial proceedings before him, such prisoner can only be discharged in one of the following cases: first, where the jurisdiction of such court or officer has been exceeded, either as to matter, place, sum, or person; second, where, though the original imprisonment was lawful, yet by some act, omission, or event which has taken place afterward, the party has become entitled to be discharged; third, where the process is defective in some matter of substance required by law, rendering such process void; fourth, where the process, though in proper form, has been issued in a case or under circumstances not allowed by law; fifth, where the process, though in proper form, has been issued or executed by a person who is not authorized by law to issue or execute the same, or where the person having the custody of such prisoner under such process is not the person empowered by law to detain him; sixth, where the process is not authorized by any judgment, order, or decree, nor by any provision of law.” (Wagn. Stat. 690, § 35.)

To entitle a prisoner to be discharged on habeas corpus, he must come within one of the above enumerated specifications, and the petitioner here falls within neither. He was arrested and detained upon legal process by a court having jurisdiction of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Ex parte Lucas
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 19, 1901
    ...decision was approved, and its doctrine reaffirmed in Ex parte Boenninghausen, 91 Mo. 301, 1 S.W. 761. In that case it was contended that the Harris case had been overruled in parte Slater, 72 Mo. 102, Ex parte Bethurum, 66 Mo. 545, and Ex parte Crenshaw, 80 Mo. 447, but the court per Norto......
  • Ex parte Hunn
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • January 12, 1948
    ...legislative act may be tested in habeas corpus where the petitioner is in custody by virtue of process charging violation of such act. Harris, 47 Mo. 164; Ex parte Voninghausen, 91 Mo. 301, 1 S.W. 761; Ex Marmaduke, 91 Mo. 228, 4 S.W. 91; Ex parte Lerner, 281 Mo. 18, 218 S.W. 331. (2) Trans......
  • Ex Parte Hunn and LeVan, 40660.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • January 12, 1948
    ...act may be tested in habeas corpus where the petitioner is in custody by virtue of process charging violation of such act. Harris, 47 Mo. 164; Ex parte Voninghausen, 91 Mo. 301, 1 S.W. 761; Ex parte Marmaduke, 91 Mo. 228, 4 S.W. 91; Ex parte Lerner, 281 Mo. 18, 218 S.W. 331. (2) Transcenden......
  • Ex parte Louis Lerner
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • January 26, 1920
    ...which the restraint was claimed to be authorized. This limitation upon the court's action first found expression in the early case In re Harris, 47 Mo. 164, which was affirmed in parte Boenninghausen, 91 Mo. 301, 1 S.W. 761. The latter ruling, however, overlooked an earlier case in the same......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT