PREVIOUS DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THIS STATE, OVERRULED IN THIS VOLUME, HARNEY V. OWEN, 4 Blackf. 337. If a minor, on the ground of his infancy, rescind a contract which had been fairly executed, and which was apparently to his advantage, he can not afterwards sue for the money or property advanced, or labor performed, by him under such contract. Overruled in Van Pelt v. Corwine, 363. THE CITY OF MADISON V. HATCHER, 8 Blackf. 341. The city of Madison brought an action of debt against H., before the mayor, who had the criminal jurisdiction of a justice of the peace, to recover a penalty, under the charter of said city, for an assault and battery. An assault and battery being a criminal offence under the statute of the state, held, that, under the constitution, the suit could not be maintained. THE CITY COUNCIL OF INDIANAPOLIS V. BLYTHE and Another, 2 Ind. R. 75. Debt by the city council of Indianapolis against B. and another to recover a penalty from them for keeping a nuisance, &c. A nuisance being a criminal offence, as well under the statute of the state, as by the common law, held, that the action could not be maintained. DEGANT V. MICHAEL, 2 Ind. R. 396. DONNELL V. THE STATE, 3 id. 480. Section 115 of chapter 53 of the R. S. 1843, which provides that "if any person, without proper authority, shall give to any one owing service in any state or territory within the United States, a certificate or other testimonial of emancipation, or shall knowingly harbor or employ any such one, owing service as aforesaid, or held as a slave, who may have come into this state without the consent of his or her owner, or shall encourage or assist any such one to desert or not go with his or her owner, or shall use any violence or other means to prevent, let, or hinder any person in lawfully recovering any fugitive slave or person owing service, such person so offending, shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined," &c., is unconstitutional and void. The doctrine of the four last-cited cases is overruled in Ambrose v. The State, 350, and The State v. Moore, 436. CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF THE STATE OF INDIANA, AT INDIANAPOLIS, NOVEMBER TERM, 1854, IN THE THIRTY- MILLER V. SNYDER. A judge of the Court of Common Pleas may, under the R. S. 1852, grant the writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner detained in the state prison under sentence for a felony. If the detention of the prisoner is illegal, it is the duty of the judge to deliver him therefrom. The detention is illegal, if by virtue of the judgment and sentence of a Court which had no jurisdiction of the cause. The case of Simington v. The State, 5 Ind. R. 479, in which it was held that the act providing for the organization of Circuit Courts, &c., approved June 1, 1852, repealed so much of the act establishing Courts of Common Pleas, &c., approved May 14, 1852, as conferred upon the latter Courts jurisdiction, in certain cases, over felonies, referred to, and the decision approved. A judge of the Court of Common Pleas, upon the hearing on the return to a habeas corpus, may, both by the R. S. 1852, and by the general principles of law, inquire into the jurisdiction of the Court by whose sentence a prisoner is detained. A prisoner was committed to the county jail by the judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Laporte county, rightly, as an examining Court, upon a complaint charging him with the commission of a felony; but the Court, having no jurisdiction to try felonies, proceeded to the trial of the prisoner and sentenced him to confinement in the state prison. While in confinement under the sentence, he applied to the judge of the Court of Common Note. The opinions delivered during the first fourteen days of this term are contained in 5 Ind. Reports. VOL. VI.-1 1 136 109 6 1 157 175 |