Opinion
(December Term, 1864.)
1. One enrolled in March, 1864, under the act of 17 February of that year, who was under 45 years of age at the time of enrollment, is bound to serve in the regular army during the war.
2. A written paper, signed by the enrolling officer, in its terms an exemption, is but a furlough or detail if the officer had no right to grant an exemption.
(433) 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.
Moore and Rogers for petitioner.
Bragg for Mallett.
This case turns upon the principles considered in Goodson v. Caldwell, post, 519. But the facts of the case being different, we are conducted to a different conclusion.
The petitioner was 45 years of age in May last. He had been exempted anterior to the passage of the law of 17 February, as a miller. After the passage of that act, viz., in the month of March, he was enrolled, and another exemption paper given, which, after the act of February repealing exemptions in such cases, could only operate as a furlough or detail. He was afterwards, viz., on 10 June, ordered into camp. He applied for a detail. This was refused. He was ordered into camp, and sued out this writ.
The enrollment and detail, which took place in March, about two months before he reached the age of 45, fixed his status as a soldier. 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 be remanded to custody, and the costs be taxed against him.
See Kesler v. Brawley, ante, 402.
(434)