The appellant in this case filed a habeas corpus action against the defendant on a claim that the defendant was threatening to arrest the appellant for expressing his ideas. The appellant states that he placed his pet rat inside a cage with a name and sign that expressed political disfavor towards the defendant. The defendant, a magistrate, felt ridiculed and, using his prerogatives to order the police to seize the rat, impliedly threatened the “life and integrity” of the animal. The appellant feared for his own and his pet’s wellbeing and requested that he be returned to him and placed under veterinary care until the legal matter was resolved.
The claim was declared unfounded by the first court that heard it, based on the reasoning that the appellant’s actions offended the defendant’s dignity and that the defendant was exercising his powers as a magistrate to keep his reputation from being tarnished. In short, the first court found no violations or threats to the appellant’s individual liberty.
The court on appeal agreed with the lower court that there was no threat to the appellant’s rights, and further noted that “[i]t is one thing to freely express one's ideas and quite another to use them to offend honor, as has occurred in the present case.”
For these reasons, the appellate-level court declared the complaint unfounded.