The Commonwealth against Cornman

[Philadelphia, Thursday, July 16, 1812.] The Commonwealth against Cornman. A debtor in eustody in consequence of a sui-render by his bail, is not entitled to a discharge, by virtue of a provisional discharge from the commissioners of insolvents under the act of 13th March 1812. This was a habeas corpus to the keeper of the debtor’s apartment, to bring up the body of Henry Thatcher. By the return it appeared that Thatcher was in custody at the suit of William J. Rayfield in the District Court of the city and county of Philadelphia, having been surrendered by his bail. Armstrong produced the provisional discharge of Thatcher, signed by a majority of the commissioners of insolvents, under the second section of the act of 13th March 1811; and he contended that the insolvent was entitled to his discharge from eustody, under the following provision of that section : “ the said commissioners shall, on possession being taken of the estate and effects as aforesaid, grant to the said petitioner under the hands and seals of the said commissioners, a provisional discharge, which shall protect such petitioner from all arrest or arrests in all civil cases either on mesne or final process, until the case of the said petitioner shall be finally heard and determined on by the said commissioners, in the manner hereafter provided.” He said that in various instances the President of the Common Pleas had discharged the party, where he was in custody by virtue of an arrest previous to his provisional discharge, and that was precisely the present case. [MAJORITY — Per Curiam.] Per Curiam. The law protects the petitioner from arrest on mesne or final process, but there was no arrest here. He was in the custody of his bail before his provisional discharge, and there has been no arrest since. Prisoner remanded. [Obsolete, the act of 13 March 1812, 5 Sm. L. 319, under which Commonwealth v. Cornman was decided, being no longer in force.]