¶1We can only conjecture that this was a proceeding before the justice against the defendant, as a non-resident free negro, under the act of 1841, Digest 410. This does not appear on the commitment, nor any authority of the justice to notify or order the defendant to leave the State; nor is any other offence charged—and this being a special power in the justice, and a penal law, *150it must appear by the commitment, under what law, and by what authority, and for what cause, the defendant was committed. For the want of this, he is discharged from custody.
5 Del. 149
Sipple v. Adams
Decided July 1, 1849
Superior Court of Delaware · decided 1849-07-01
Habeas Corpus. The sheriff returned that he had the complainant in custody, under a warrant of commitment from Justice Windsor, directed to S. A. Polk, constable, to the sheriff or jailer, and reciting that “whereas Robert Sipple, free negro, has this day been brought before the subscriber, one of the justices of the peace for said county, by virtue of a warrant by me issued on the 15th of September, 1.849, to answer to the charge of not leaving the State of Delaware, in…
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently November 1912
2 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1849-07-01
View the full empirical analysis of this case →