C. S. District Court.
--
Judge Halyburton, at the session of his Court yesterday, gave his opinion in the
habeas corpus case of
the Rev. E. E. Orvis, the facts in which we have heretofore published.
He decided that the reverend gentleman was not liable to military duty, notwithstanding the fact that he had been employed by
Mr. Allen as a substitute for the war, and therefore discharged him.
Another case, which occupied the attention of the
Court yesterday, was that of
W. A. Bass, who had applied to be discharged from military service.
Mr. Bass, in 1862, was exempt from military duty because of being an employee in the
Examiner newspaper office.
Some short time after he quit the
Examiner, sought employment in the Danville Railroad Company's office, and afterwards left there and obtained exemption in the
Enquirer office.
After getting an exemption in the last office, he was reported to the
Conscript Bureau as having left the railroad without being discharged.
The letter of
Mr. Harvie, reporting him, was referred to the
Secretary of War, and that official endorsed upon it that if
Bass had been enrolled and detailed, then he was to be taken by the conscript officers.
The conscript officers, with this endorsement, arrested
Bass and sent him to the conscript camp.
Mr. Daniel, the counsel for
Bass, took the ground that he had never been conscripted and enrolled, and was not liable to military duty, as he had a legal exemption paper when arrested.
Messrs. Aylett and
Argust argued that the entering of his name on the book of exempts was an enrollment, and that he was therefore, just as liable to military arrest for leaving the railroad without a discharge as if he had been entered on the enrolling list of conscripts and then detailed.
The
Judge, after hearing the evidence and arguments, took until Wednesday to give an opinion.
