
    W. F. MACARTY'S CASE.
    A mittimus in French, is bad.
    Escape, ex vi termini, means from a lawful im-prisonmdnt.
    Habeas Corpus. The defendant was originally committed for forgery and swindling, and an escape. The offence being alledged to have been. committed in the part of the territory of Orleans lately taken possession of by the United States, a rule of court was obtained for his transmission to St. Francisville. On his way thither, he made his escape, and was brought before a French magistrate, who sent him to jail, with a mittimus written in French.
    
      Livingston
    moved for his discharge, stating that the mittimus was unconstitutional, and consequently null and void.
    By the Court. The constitution requiring that all judicial proceedings should be in the language in which the laws and constitution of the United States are written, it necessarily follows that we cannot recognize any validity or force in any judicial proceedings couched in any other language.
    Duncan, attorney-general.
    He is still to be retained, under the rule of court, which has not been complied with.
    After some conversation, in which the Court said, and Livingston did not appear to deny, that the order of court was valid, although the offence, for the triad of which he was directed to be transferred, was not expressed. A. mittimus for an escape, in the English language, was produced, and
    Livingston, insisted on shewing that the fact, for which he was committed, had been done in the part of the territory lately annexed, before the annexation, and whilst it was in the possession of the Spaniards, so that it was no offence against the state or territory; and the commitment being un~ lawful, an escape from it was lawful.
   By the Court.

The word escape has a well known legal meaning. Ex vi termini, it implies a previous legal restraint; to inquire into the existence or absence of which, would be to try the prisoner on the merits, in the same, manner as, on a commitment for larceny, it would be, to try whether the prisoner was not the lawful owner of the goods stated to have been stolen.

Prisoner remanded.  