Hamilton v. Shepherd
Hamilton v. Shepherd
Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was read, as drawn up by
We think the magistrate erred in supposing that the respondent’s enlistment in the rifle company, and his appointment to the duty of corporal therein, while exempted from militia duty on account of being an engine-man, excused him from service in the infantry company in which he had previously enlisted. The exemption of an engine-man may
We think also that the respondent’s second voluntary enlist ment into another volunteer company does not relieve him from his liabilities to the first. He had engaged himself for seven years ; had a dispensation for such time as he should continue an engine-man; but had not a right to transfer his services to another company to the prejudice of that in which he had first enlisted.
Nor will his appointment as corporal in the rifle company-make any difference ; for the captain of one company cannot take men from the ranks of another and make of them non-commissioned officers. It is not like the case of Commonwealth v. Thaxter, which has been cited, for the commandant of the regiment in that case advanced Thaxter from the ranks of the volunteer company which was a component part of his regiment, which he had a right to do.
Proceedings quashed
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Charles A. Hamilton versus John D. Shepherd
- Status
- Published