
    The Commonwealth against Hambright.
    
      Tuesday, May 19.
    IT appeared on the return of a habeas corpus, by which Amos Harmer was brought before the Court by the defendant, the iailor of Lancaster county, that he had been taken on a capias ad satisfaciendum, returnable, to April, 1818, in the Common Pleas of Lancaster county, issued in a suit by William M'-Kim, assignee of John Pettit, against him and several other defendants, which the Court, on motion and after argument, set aside, being of opinion, that there was no judgment against him, and that, therefore, the writ was void. About an hour after the order for his discharge, he was arrested at the suit of the same plaintiff under a capias ad respondendum, issued against him and one of the other defendants in the former, suit, returnable to August Term, 1818. By virtue of this writ he was imprisoned, and the Court of Common Pleas refused a rule to shew cause why he should not be discharged.
    When anos. refused to disaiiarSe on? of from arrest on pr¡vfiege” this /I'a*’ deas corpus.
    
    
      Porter and Hopkins,
    in his behalf, now moved for his discharge, on the ground, that it was a breach of privilege to arrest him, while he was attending the Court of Common Pleas, in order to obtain his discharge from the capias ad 
      satisfaciendum, for which they cited, 3 Bac. Ab. 425. Hub. Cor. B. Vaugh. 153. Salk, 350.
    Buchannan, for the defendant,
    opposed the motion, arguing, that the privilege by which suitors were protected, was the privilege of the Court, and not of the party, and that it was entirely in their discretion, whether to allow it or not. Cameron v. Lightfoot.
      Street’s Case.
      
       It was the province of the Court of Common Pleas to protect their own suitors, and they had thought proper to refuse the privilege claimed on this occasion. If this Court may, upon a habeas corpus, discharge a man arrested under the process of another Court, on such ground, every Court and every Judge of the Common Pleas, may discharge persons arrested on writs issued by this Court.
    But this, he contended, was not a case of privilege. The discharge from arrest under the capias ad satisfaciendum did not discharge him from arrests for other causes, and no adjudged case could be found, in which privilege was allowed under such circumstances.
    
      
       2 Bl. Rep. 1190.
    
    
      
      5) 1 Dali. 356.
    
   By The Court.

The Court of Common Pleas having decided, that the prisoner was not entitled to privilege from arrest, we are of opinion, that this Court ought not to interfere, and therefore the prisoner is to be remanded.

Prisoner remanded.  