1. Home >
  2. The Papers >
  3. >
Introduction to United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–A and United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B Certificate, 21 May 1844 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Warrant, 21 May 1844 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith] Petition, 30 May 1844 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B] Habeas Corpus, 30 May 1844 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B] Motion, 30 May 1844 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B] Motion, 30 May 1844, Copy [United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B] Docket Entry, 30–31 May 1844 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B]

Motion, 30 May 1844 [United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B]

  • Source Note
  • Historical Introduction
Asterisk (*) denotes a "featured" version, which includes an introduction and annotation Motion, 30 May 1844 [ United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B ] Motion, 30 May 1844, Copy [ United States v. Jeremiah Smith on Habeas Corpus–B ]
Page [1]
image
State of Illinois)
City of )
Municipal Court Special Session
May 30th. 1844
In the matter of the Petition of vs.
And now, the said moves the Court here that he be discharged & suffered to go at large
1st. Because the Court <​person​> issuing the warrant on which he has been arrested <​is unauthorized to issue the same.​> has exceeded the limits of its jurisdiction, as to the matter concerning which it has undertaken to act.
2. Because the has been issued in a case & under circumstances where the Law does not allow process.
3. Because the person having the custody of said is unauthorised to execute the warrant under which he is acting & is not the person empowered by Law to detain him.
4. Because said has been <​by &​> before a competent Court legally examined & discharged in relation to the subject matter set forth in said Warrant
5. Because said writ is defective in a substantial form required by Law
By Attorneys [p. [1]]
State of Illinois)
City of )
Municipal Court Special Session
May 30th. 1844
In the matter of the Petition of vs.
And now, the said moves the Court here that he be discharged & suffered to go at large
1st. Because the person issuing the warrant on which he has been arrested is unauthorized to issue the same.
2. Because the has been issued in a case & under circumstances where the Law does not allow process.
3. Because the person having the custody of said is unauthorised to execute the warrant under which he is acting & is not the person empowered by Law to detain him.
4. Because said has been by & before a competent Court legally examined & discharged in relation to the subject matter set forth in said Warrant
5. Because said writ is defective in a substantial form required by Law
By Attorneys [p. [1]]
View entire transcript |
Cite this page
Cite this page
Page [1]
1
Contact Us FAQ Follow Us on Facebook

Request for Documents

Do you know of any Joseph Smith documents that we might not have heard about? Tell us

The Church Historian’s Press is an imprint of the Church History Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah, and a trademark of Intellectual Reserve, Inc.

© 2022 by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved. Terms of Use Updated 2021-04-13 | Privacy Notice Updated 2021-04-06 |