2620-2003-HC.pdf (149.17 KB)
The appellant in this case brought a writ of habeas corpus for his pet rat against the appellee, who took possession of the rat and allegedly threatened to arrest the appellant for expressing his opinions, which were not in favor of the appellee. The court mentioned the “life and integrity” of the rat but ultimately held that the case was “nonsense” and offensive to the purpose of the court. The court declared the case unfounded.