[127
7
246
:.
Di
::
$
onoi ti⠀ ̧À
£
‚rebola-b0 J
i
A. Date TIAR
.J II
Jour TOT
JI
1.1
:
HA
I Jul"
* erisoo bluong
LIN N BOLLS-
,eonabiger
nedade woc Ind oila
t
i
JLUTION BAN Tol „Piton ge
-0.00
ni Dia Telgo down
i ne vozat ku vanae
WROT KA 0.
o molila *.Io
J
oned gk.
14
Donne o
RUN IC
the
vited to
OCT. to
ni 8.
en-dnos zoidon rim te..
budindiwa ni sl
To ovil nok goo Boy 4 Tut to vak vibroznę tam to
* ni Jon * deti to SALUD D
08:0
JUO JO05,VID.
:
mur JI JUN
sh. to Irod for
Gvqulo
· examination. Afterwards another complaint was filed for the same offence showing by its averments that the offence was committed by Holm. He plea
-ded his former discharge and asked to be released. From the refusal he
sued out a writ of Habeas Corpus in the State District court and upon
the discharge of this writ sued out another writ in the Supreme Court
with an ancillary certiorari. The court said:-
"As we understand the relator, he claims that under Gen. St.
1878, c. 80, sec. 46, where one comitted upon an examina-
-tion for an offence charged has been discharged upon habeas
corpus for defect in the proof on the examination, a new
warrant for the same offence cannot be legally issued against
him, unless the defect in the proofs on the prior examina-
-tion is cured: that this is a jurisdictional prerequisite;
and that it must appear in the warrant; and, otherwise, the proceedings are void. x x x. As we construe this provision, its intent is that a discharge upon habeas corpus for defect of proof shall terminate the proceeding under which the per- -son was detained, so that he cannot, under that proceeding, be further res trained of his liberty; and so that any further prosecution for the same offence must be by a new
whether proceeding, instituted as all criminal prosecutions, after a discharge on habeas corpus or not, are required to be, on sufficient proof given in the proceeding.
"To require, on an application for a new warrant, any more than is required on any application for a warrant, might lead to serious inconvenience, As if the officer to whom the application for the new warrant is made knows nothing of the prior arrest and discharge, how is he to know that he ought to require more in the way of proof, or to insert more in the warrant, than on any other application ?* State of Minn., Ex rel. Zugschwerd vs, Holm
37 Minnesota Reports, p. 405.
The State of South Carolina had a habeas corpus statute one
section of which was substantially similar to that of section five of
ic