Knowlton v. Baker
| Decision Date | 14 April 1881 |
| Citation | 72 Me. 202 |
| Parties | SAMUEL KNOWLTON, Petitioner for writ of Habeas Corpus, v. CHARLES BAKER. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
ON EXCEPTIONS.
Habeas corpus. The court held that the petitioner as a matter of legal right was entitled to be discharged from his imprisonment and ordered his discharge. The respondent alleged exceptions which " being seasonably presented and found correct are allowed, if allowable; the full court to determine whether exceptions will be in the case stated."
J. W. Knowlton for the petitioner.
Thompson & Dunton, for the respondent.
Exceptions do not lie to the discharge of a prisoner on habeas corpus. The object of the writ is to secure the right of personal liberty; and this can only be accomplished by prompt action and a speedy trial. To allow exceptions to the order of the court in term time, or to the order of a judge in vacation, discharging a prisoner, would necessarily result in considerable delay, and thus defeat one of the principal purposes of the writ, namely, a speedy release. True, errors may result from such hasty action, and parties interested in the imprisonment of the person released, may thereby suffer. But the history of the writ shows that greater evils are liable to result from the want of speedy action. We have been cited to no authority justifying the allowance of exceptions in such cases, and we are not aware of the existence of any. On the contrary, it has been decided in Massachusetts that exceptions do not lie in such cases. And their habeas corpus act, in force at the time of the decision, so far as this question is concerned, was in no respect different from what ours is now. In fact, ours, as is well known, is substantially a transcript of theirs. Wyeth v. Richardson, 10 Gray 240.
Exceptions dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Petition of Blades, 6661
... ... 529; Kootenai County ... v. White, 53 Idaho 804, 805, 27 P.2d 977; see 10 A. L ... R. 386 and cases in note II; Knowlton v. Baker, 72 ... Me. 202; In re Bishop, 172 Mass. 35, 51 N.E. 191; ... Burr v. Foster, 132 Ala. 41, 31 So. 495.) ... The ... presence of ... ...
-
Ex parte Sullivan
... ... case is inconsistent with the object of the writ. Wyeth ... v. Richardson, 10 Gray, Mass. 240; Knowlton v ... Baker, 72 Me. 202; State v. Miller, 97 N.C ... 451, 1 S.E. 776; People v. Schuster, 40 Cal. 627; ... Grady v. Superior Court, 64 ... ...
-
Ex parte Holbrook
...justice of the case demands it" O'Malia v. Wentworth, 65 Me. 129; Ex Parte Sweetland, Petitioner, 124 Me. 58, 126 A. 42. And in Knowlton v. Baker, 72 Me. 202, Stuart v. Smith, 101 Me. 397, 64 A. 663, and Wyeth v. Richardson, Mass. (10 Gray) 240, it was decided that exceptions will not lie t......
-
Wisener v. Burrell
...to the following texts and authorities: Church on Habeas Corpus (2d Ed.) § 386; 2 Spelling on Extraordinary Relief, § 1355; Knowlton v. Baker, 72 Me. 202; Mead v. Metcalf, 7 Utah 103, 25 P. 729; In re Barker, 56 Vt. 1; State ex rel. v. Houston, 30 La. Ann. (part 2) 1174; In re Strickland & ......