Enlistment

The act of making a contract to serve the government iu a subordinate capacity, either in the army or navy. The contract so made is also called an enlistment. A drafted man is said to be "eulisted" as well as a volunteer, but the term does not apply to one entering the army under a commission; Inhabitants of Sheffield v. Inhabitants of Otis, 107 Mass. 282; Billiard v. Stewartstown, 48 N. II.

280.

Th< otract of enlistment involves a change in the status will, though he may violate his contract: In re Grimley, 137 Q. S. 147, 11 Sup. Ct. 54, 34 L. Ed 636. Fraudulent enlistment is an off< Ishable by general court-martial; A I ••tween the ages of 16 and 18 are authorized to enlist if they have the consent of their parents or guardians; R. S. 1419. But a minor who has been enlisted in either service without the consent of his par ents or guardian is both de facto and dr jure in the service, and is liable to be tried and punished for any infraction of the regulations. The lack of such consent will require his discharge from the service, but it will not absolve him from punishment for offences committed while in the service; Dillingham v. Booker, L63 Fed. 696, 90 C. C. A 280, IS L. R. A. (N. S.) 956, 16 Ann. Cas. 127; U. S. v. Reaves, 126 Fed. 127, GO C. C. A. 675; In re Scott, 144 Fed. 79, 7.", < '. c. a.

237; In re Lessard, 134 Fed. 305.

But in Ex parte Lisk. 145 Fed. 8G0, it was held that where the statute required the consent of the parents, and such consent was not given, the minor was not a person "belonging to the navy," and the naval authorities could not detain him in custody with a view to having him tried by a naval court-martial for fraudulent enlistment, when the real issue was his legal right to enter the navy, and whether he was lawfully therein or not; followed in Dillingham v. Bakley, 152 Fed. 1022, 82 C. C. A 659, affirming Ex parte Bakley, 14S Fed. 50. Where the jurisdiction of the civil courts has attached in habeas corpus proceedings before charges are preferred against a minor for fraudulent enlistment and an arrest made, he is entitled to be discharged; Ex parte Houghton, 129 Fed. 239; contra.

Ex parte Lewkowitz, 163 Fed. 046.

In V. S. v. Wright, 5 Phila. 299, Fed. Cas. No. 16,778, it was held the enlistment of a minor without his parents' consent was illegal, and his subsequent desertion was but a disclaimer of his contract, which be had a right to make, citing and following Com. v. Fox, T Pa. 336. But the right to a discharge is denied to a minor, himself the petitioner, on the ground that the contract was valid so far as the minor himself is concerned; In re Moirissey, 137 U. S. ir,7.

11 Sup. Ct. 57,.".1 L. Ed. 644; In re Hearn, 32 Fed. 141. See 22 II. I.. K. 144.

A federal court may discharge on habeas corpus; I0x parte Sehmeid. 1 In' Fed. Cas. No. 12,461: but not a state court: Tarble's Case, 13 Wall. (U. S.) 397, 20 L. Ed 597. The receipt of pay seems to be tantamount to an enlistment or perhaps evidence th( Art. of War 17 provides for the punishment of "any soldier who. having received pay or having been duly enlisted," etc., "deserts," etc. In Re Grimley, 137 I". S. 147, 11 Sup. Ct 54, 34 I.. Ed. 636, it was held that taking the oath of enlistment "was the pivotal fact ENORMIA (Lat). Wrongs. See Alia Enormia. ENQUETE or ENQUEST. In Canon Law. An examination of witnesses in the presence of a judge authorized to sit for this purpose, taken in writing, to be used as evidence in the trial of a cause. The day of hearing must be specified in a notice to the opposite party; 9 Low. C. 392. It may be opened, in some cases, before the trial; 10 Low. G. 19.