Introduction to State of Illinois v. J. Hoopes and L. Hoopes on Habeas Corpus
State of Illinois v. J. Hoopes and L. Hoopes on Habeas Corpus
Hancock Co., Illinois, Justice of the Peace Court, 4 April 1843
Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illinois, Municipal Court, 5 April 1843
Historical Introduction
On 5 April 1843, JS presided over a hearing in the , Illinois, municipal court for Jonathan and Lewis Hoopes, who had been charged with . The charges grew out of a conflict between the Hoopeses and Elizabeth Ann Driggs on 1 April. After the conflict, Driggs swore out an affidavit before alderman and Nauvoo justice of the peace , claiming that the father and son had “Seriously frighten[ed]” her “in a riotous and Tumultuous Manner” by bringing a horse into her home, thus “forcibly” removing her from the premises. Wells issued an arrest warrant to Constable on 3 April, and Parker arrested the two men the next day on a charge of riot.
On 4 April 1843, Jonathan and Lewis Hoopes petitioned the Municipal Court for a writ of habeas corpus. In their petition, the men made three arguments challenging their arrest: first, that their actions did not amount to as defined by law; second, that the warrant was “insufficient in Law” to keep them in custody; and third, that the “Warrant was obtained through private pigue [pique], malicious intent, falshood, and misrepesentation.” The specific rationales for their first two arguments are unclear. However, the third argument was almost a direct quotation from a Nauvoo ordinance governing habeas corpus, which authorized the municipal court to investigate the circumstances behind the issuance of the arrest warrant. In response to their petition, , the clerk of the municipal court, issued a writ of habeas corpus and notified the members of the court to assemble the next morning to hear the case.
The municipal court assembled on 5 April with JS presiding as chief justice. , who as a justice of the peace had issued the warrant, sat as an associate justice in the proceedings. After hearing five of the eight witnesses, including Driggs, the court—going beyond what was understood at common law to be permissible in habeas corpus cases—ruled that the Hoopeses were “acquitted of the charges” and ordered “that they be released & dis[c]harged” from custody. The court also ordered that Driggs’s husband, Samuel, pay the costs of the hearing. Subsequent efforts by the court to collect the costs were unsuccessful.
Calendar of Documents
This calendar lists all known documents created by or for the court, whether extant or not. It does not include versions of documents created for other purposes, though those versions may be listed in footnotes. In certain cases, especially in cases concerning unpaid debts, the originating document (promissory note, invoice, etc.) is listed here. Note that documents in the calendar are grouped with their originating court. Where a version of a document was subsequently filed with another court, that version is listed under both courts.
View entire transcript |
Cite this page
Cite this page
