Ex Parte Maulsby, 13 Md. 625 (1859)
See also: MSA SC 5339-106-72
Opinion from Westlaw
KeyCite results from Westlaw
Shepard's results from Lexis
Note: Opinion not available in Lexis; as noted in 101 Md. App. 243 (1993), the Maulsby case "was not an opinion of the Court of Appeals, appearing in the appendix to 13 Md" (n3). Lexis has a tendency not to have these sorts of supplementary cases.
Nnoli v. Nnoli 101 Md. App. 243 (1993), an appeal regarding the granting of habeas corpus in cases of contempt, discusses Maulsby at length, noting that Judge Bartol heard the case under the authority granted by Chapter 125, Section 2, Acts of Maryland of 1809. That section reads in part, "That if any person in the vacation time shall be or stand committed ... the prisoner or person detained ... may complain to the chancellor, or any judge of the court of appeals, or of the county courts of this state, or to the chief justice of the court of oyer and terminer and gaol delivery for Baltimore county" for the writ of habeas corpus.
This procedure is further explicated in Ex Parte Hugh O'Neill, 8 Md. 227 (1855): "The Act of 1809, ch. 125, empowering any judge of the Court of Appeals, in vacation, to grant the writ of habeas corpus, is still in force." The decision further discusses that while the Court of Appeals as a body does not hold original jurisdiction over habeas corpus, the individual judges may grant the writ while the local courts are not in session, as was the case in Maulsby. This power was important, in order to "grant immediate relief to the aggrieved party."
I suspect that Judge Bartol heard the proceedings because he was elected from the First Judicial District, which included Frederick County.
COURT OF APPEALS (Docket) 12/1858-6/1862 searched and no references found to Maulsby among cases docketed during March 1859 (this was during the Court's December 1858 term).
FREDERICK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT (Docket) 1859/02 and 1859/10 were searched; no record of the case found. Presumably there is no docketed mention of the case because it occurred while the court was not in session.
See notes section for my research notes on the history of habeas corpus, particularly jurisdiction
Coverage in the Frederick Herald (MSA SC 3407-1-1, 3/44/6/49)
March 15, 1859, p. 2, col. 3
Lichlien, Maulsby's client, acquitted of forgery charges.
March 29, 1859, p. 2, cols. 2-3
Discussion of contempt charges, and opinion of Judge Bartol
April 5, 1859, p. 1, cols. 1-6 and p. 2, col. 4
Judge Bartol's full opinion printed, editorial about the case, as well as a letter from Maulsby to the paper's editor.
Coverage in the Baltimore Sun (MSA SC 2852-1-114, 3/42/12/39)
March 24, 1859, p. 4, col 3
Description of the proceedings in the Court of Appeals
March 26, 1859, p. 2, col. 1
Short note about Judge's Bartol's decision in the case.
|
