
    The People v. Márquez.
    PetitioN for a writ of habeas corpus.
    
    No. 47.
    Decided March 18, 1905.
    Habeas Corpus — Exceeding Jurisdiction — Appeal—Bond—Illegal Imprisonment. — When an appeal is taken from a judgment of a municipal court and the accused has given the required bond, the ease shall be tried de novo, and if the court orders that the judgment appealed from shall be executed without the accused having had a hearing and without a trial de novo, the court exceeds its jurisdiction, and the imprisonment is illegal and defendant will be discharged on habeas corpus.
    
    Id. — Commitment.—If the commitment by which the accused is imprisoned is not accompanied by a copy of the sentence of the court, it contains a substantial error, and is therefore void and the imprisonment illegal.
    The facts are stated in the opinion.
    
      Mr. Mott, for petitioner.
    
      'Mr. Bossy, Fiscal, for The People.
   OPINION OP THE COURT.

The imprisonment of Francisco Márquez Cuello at the time of the filing of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus is illegal, as it is based on a decision rendered by the District Court of Aguadilla, which said court, without hearing the said Márquez Cuello, issued an order for the execution of the sentence rendered by the municipal judge of Lares, notwithstanding the fact that the said Márquez Cuello had furnished good and sufficient bond for the holding of a new trial on appeal taken from the said sentence.; and, further, in view of the fact that the warden of the jail under whose custody the aforesaid petitioner was, has produced only the commitment that was delivered to him for the imprisonment of the said Márquez Cuello, and'that the said imprisonment could only he justified under ■ a sentence, of which no copy has been produced by said official, it is therefore obvious that the District Court of Aguadilla exceeded its jurisdiction and that the commitment of the said Márquez Cuello contains a material error and should be vacated.

The petitioner is hereby ordered to be discharged and the bond furnished by him in this court for his provisional liberty is 'hereby cancelled.

Dismissed.

Mr. Chief Justice Quiñones and Justices Hernández and Higueras concurred.

Justice Wolf also concurred, but dissented from the reasons upon which the decision is based.

Justice MacLeary took no part in the decision of this case.  