Abstract; Undated

Documents
Abstract; Undated

Document Network
Document Metadata

Each transcribed document contains links that connect it to other documents on the same topic in the collection.

People

Berry, M. F.Frinkle, Unknown Hancock, William M.Irwin, T. K.Ketchum, John R.Seddon, James A. (James Alexander), 1815-1880

Events

Confederate States of America--Draft Criminal Procedure--Writ of Habeas Corpus Military Events--Military discharge Military Events--Recruiting and enlistment Scott, Dred, 1809-1858--Trials, litigation, etc.Trial

Military Units

Confederate States of America. Army Confederate States of America. Army. Mississippi. Infantry Regiment, 31st Confederate States of America. Army. Mississippi. Infantry Regiment, 31st. Company A

Organizations and Businesses

Confederate States of America. War Department Courts Judicial Districts Judicial Districts--8th (Miss.)

Occupations

Judges

Places

Alabama Military training camps Mobile (Ala.)

Social Identifiers

Military Status--Draftees Military Status--Military substitutes

Page 1

Abstract of proceedings in the case of—Frinkle—vs—Habeas Corpus
M .F. Berry, Major &c

Before Hon. Wm M. Han-Cock, Judge 8th Judicial District, State Miss.

Petitioner claimed a discharge from conscription on the ground that he had furnished a substitute.

The only evidence adduced upon the trial was a paper writing, ~~purporting~~ signed by one T.K. Irwin, Captain, at Mobile, Ala, who was authorized to raise a company of infantry for the war, to be attached, when complete, to Col. Ketchum's regiment, then in proof of organization under powers conferred by the Secretary of War. The paper further states that Frinkle was "a conscript" and that having presented a substitute "not sub-ject to conscription" he was discharged from the service. This discharge was dated about the 10th or 12th May 1862.

There was no evidence that Frinkle was ever in the service, or that Capt. Irwin succeeded in raising his company.

Contended on the trial that petitioner

Page 2

should not be discharged

1. Because Capt. Irwin had no authority to accept substitutes for conscription—such powers being exclusively vested by the Sec-retary of War in the Commandants of the different Camps of Instruction.

2. That Capt Irwin had no authority to grant discharges from his company (if it were urged that he was a member of said company) until after it had been or-ganized and regularly mustered into the service.

3. That it devolved upon petitioner to prove the organization and having failed to do so the Court cannot presume an organization. The very definition of a discharge presumes an existing, perfect organization.

~~Since the trial~~ It has been ^since^ ascertained that the substitute at the time of trial was 18 years of age and consequently himself subject to conscription.