Cave v. Superintendent of State Reformatory for Males

Grason, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an application for leave to appeal from the refusal of a writ of habeas corpus by Judge Bailey, of the Circuit Court for Wicomico County. The reason contained in the applicant’s petition for the writ is that he is restrained of his liberty (he is now confined in the Maryland State Reformatory for Males) in violation of the constitutions of the State of Maryland and of the United States. In his brief he states when he was called to trial he protested that he was not given a preliminary hearing (although he was regularly indicted by the Grand Jury for Baltimore City); that Judge Manley, who was then presiding, asked the States Attorney why he was not given a preliminary hearing, and he replied: “I am ⁶⁷⁶ sorry we have neglected to do so, your Honor, but this is a brother to Kenneth Cave who is over in the City jail”, and that Judge Manley replied: “Oh, then he needs none”.

There is nothing in the record to sustain this statement in the applicant’s brief. We cannot consider unsworn statements, and such matters as this cannot be raised on habeas corpus, for they can be reviewed on an appeal. Loughran v. Warden of Md. House of Correction, 192 Md. 719 , 64 A. 2d 712 . He then argues that it is absolutely indispensable that a prisoner should be given a preliminary hearing, and if he is indicted without first having been given a preliminary hearing a subsequent trial and conviction is a nullity.

He says this is so under a Federal law, and cites a section of Corpus Juris Secundum as authority for his position. He says that this is the law throughout the country, the