1791-06-16 (static/transcriptions/1791/06/121.jpg)

Man is committed for any crime, punishable by indictment; there he is to be comd till dischd by due course of Law: but when it is in Pursuance of special Authorty the terms of the committmt must exactly pursue that Authty.

2 Blackst 806 Mash’s case.

3. The warrant or order is not set forth; which it ought to be, that the cause of detention may fully appear. For if in the return no sufficient cause appear, he ought to be set at liberty. 2 Inst. 615.

4. The Commitment ought to have been to the common gaol, and directed to the Sheriff 5 Hen: 4.c:10. 2 Hawkins’s P: Cr. 181. In a case of the Court of Aldermen of London it was held that the Sheriff was “their proper officer, & that they should commit to him” and also that “where a commitment is in court, to a proper officer this present there is no warrant of commitment, and therefore he cannot return a warrant in Rac verfa, but must return the truth of the whole matter; but if a man be comd to one that is not an officer, as in this case, there must be a warrant in writing, and where there is one it must be returned.” King v Clark 1 Salk: 349.

5thly. And lastly, it was insisted by Mr. Shaw that, if the seizure and detention of Mr. Duane