hide
Named Entity Searches
hide
Matching Documents
The documents where this entity occurs most often are shown below. Click on a document to open it.
Document | Max. Freq | Min. Freq | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 17. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones) | 3 | 3 | Browse | Search |
Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 24. (ed. Reverend J. William Jones) | 2 | 0 | Browse | Search |
The Daily Dispatch: December 6, 1861., [Electronic resource] | 2 | 2 | Browse | Search |
Brigadier-General Ellison Capers, Confederate Military History, a library of Confederate States Military History: Volume 5, South Carolina (ed. Clement Anselm Evans) | 1 | 1 | Browse | Search |
The Daily Dispatch: April 27, 1863., [Electronic resource] | 1 | 1 | Browse | Search |
The Daily Dispatch: August 17, 1863., [Electronic resource] | 1 | 1 | Browse | Search |
The Daily Dispatch: December 19, 1863., [Electronic resource] | 1 | 1 | Browse | Search |
The Daily Dispatch: December 29, 1863., [Electronic resource] | 1 | 1 | Browse | Search |
View all matching documents... |
Browsing named entities in The Daily Dispatch: April 27, 1863., [Electronic resource]. You can also browse the collection for Rockingham (North Carolina, United States) or search for Rockingham (North Carolina, United States) in all documents.
Your search returned 1 result in 1 document section:
Habeas Corpus.
--An important case has been decided by Chief Justice Person.
In July, 1862 John N. Irvin, of Rockingham county, N. C. hired a substitute one Gadhart, who was 36 years of age, and consequently not then liable as a conscript.--He was accepted by Col. Madett and Irvin received an absolute discharge.
After the passage of the law subjecting men between 35 and 45 to conscription.
It was contended that Godhart was himself liable, and that, therefore, Irvin's discharge had no further effect.
The Chief Justice decided that this was not the law, but that Irvin, having been absolutely discharged, was no longer liable to conscription.
He says it would be different where a youth under 18 was hired since it was known to the partier when he was hired that he would be liable on arriving at 18.
The consideration then faits, and the officer has no right to grant a longer discharge.