
    EDWIN HASWELL vs. PETER MALLETT.
    One enrolled in March, 1864, under the act of 17th February of that year, who was under 45‘at the time of enrollment, is bound to serve in the regular army during the war.
    A written paper, signed by the Enrolling Officer, in its terms an exemption, is but a furlough or detail, if *ha officer had no right to grant aa -exemption. '
    This was a writ of habeas corpus sued out by Haswell for the purpose of being released from service in the regular army as a conscript.
    The facts appear from the opinion.of the Court.
    
      Rogers and Moore for the petitioner.
    
      Bragg for Mallett.
   Manly, J.

This case turns upon the principles considered in the case of G-oodson, decided at this term. But tbe facts of tbe ease being different, .we are conducted to a different conclusion.

. Tbe petitioner was 45 years of age in May l^st. He. bad been exempted anterior to tbe passage of tbe law of the 17th of February, as a miller. After tbe passing of ' that act, vizin tbe month of March, he was enrolled, and .another exemption paper given, which,.after the act of February repealing exemptions in Mich eases, could only operate as a furlough or detail. il<> was afterwards, viz : on tbe UHh of Juno, ordered into camp. He applied for a detail. This was refused. Ho was ordered into .camp, «and sued out this writ.

The enrolment and detail, which took place in March, about two months before he reached the. o,ge of 45, fixed, his status as a sohlior. He was properly enrolled in the body of regular troops, where the term of' service for the war is prescribed by the acts of 1862.

The petitioner must he remanded to custody, and the costs he taxed against him.  