ENLARGING. Extending, or making more comprehensive : as, a'n enlarging statute, which is one extending the common law. En larging an estate is the increasing an estate in land, as where A. has an estate for life with remainder to B. and his heirs, and B. releases his estate to A. 2 Bla. Corn. 324. See RELEASE.
The act of making a con tract to serve the government in a subordi nate capacity, either in the army or navy. The contract so made is also called an en listment. A drafted man is said to be "en listed" as well as a volunteer, but the term does not apply to one entering the army un der a commission ; Inhabitants of Sheffield v. Inhabitants of Otis, 107 Mass. 282 ; Hilliard v. Stewartstown, 48 N. H. 280. The contract of enlistment involves a change in the status of the recruit, which he cannot throw off at will, though he may violate his contract ; In re Grimley, 137 U. S. 147, 11 Sup. Ct. 54, 34 L. Ed. 636.
Fraudulent enlistment is an offense pun ishable by general court-martial ; Act March 3, 1893. Boys between the ages of 16 and 18 are authorized to enlist if they have the con sent of their parents or guardians ; H. S. 1419. But a minor who has been enlisted in either service without the consent of his par ents or guardian is both and de jure in the service, and is liable to be tried and punished for any infraction of the regulations. The lack of such consent will require his dis charge from the service, but it will not ab solve him from punishment for offences com mitted while in the service ; Dillingham v. Booker, .163 Fed. 696, 90 C. C. A. 280, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 956, 16 Ann. Cas. 127; U. S. v Reaves, 126 Fed. 127, 60 C. C. A. 675 ; In re Scott, 144 Fed. 79, 75 C. C. A. 237 ; In re Lessard, 134 Fed. 305. But in Ex parte Lisk, 145 Fed. 860, it was held that where the stat ute required the consent of the parents, and such consent was not given, the minor was not a person "belonging to the navy," and the naval authorities could not detain him in custody with a view to having him tried by a naval court-martial for fraudulent en listment, when the real issue was his legal right to enter the navy, and whether he was lawfully therein or not ; followed in Dilling ham v. Bakley, 152 Fed. 1022, 82 C. C. A.
659, affirming Ex parte Bakley, 148 Fed. 56.
Where the jurisdiction of the civil courts has attached in habeas corpus proceedings be fore charges are preferred against a minor for fraudulent enlistment and an arrest made, he is entitled to be discharged; Ex parte Houghton, 129 Fed. 239 ; contra, Ex parte Lewkowitz, 163 Fed. 646. In U. S. v. Wright, 5 Phila. 299, Fed. Cas. No. 16,778, it was held the enlistment of a minor without his parents' consent was illegal, and his sub sequent desertion was but a disclaimer of his contract, which he had a right to make, citing and following Corn. v. Fox, 7 Pa. 336. But the right to a discharge is denied to a minor, himself the petitioner, on the ground that the contract was valid so far as the minor himself is concerned ; In re Morrissey, 137 U. S. 157, 11 Sup. Ct. 57, 34 L. Ed. 644 ; In re Hearn, 32 Fed. 141. See 22 H. L. , 144. A federal court may discharge on ha beas corpus; Ex parte Schmeid, 1 Dill. 587, Fed. Cas. No. 12,461; but not a state court ; Tarble's Case, 13 Wall. (U. S.) 397, 20 L. Ed. 597.
The receipt of pay seems to be tantamount to an enlistment or perhaps evidence thereof. Art. of War 47 piovidea for the punishment of "any soldier who, having received pay or having been duly enlisted," etc., "deserts," etc. In Re Grimley, 137 U. S. 147, 11 Sup. Ct. 54, 34 L. Ed. 636, it was held that taking the oath of enlistment "was the pivotal fact which operated to change the status."