Ahlrichs v. Rollo

• Decision Date: 17 May 1917
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 515
• Citation: 200 Ala. 271,76 So. 37
• Parties: AHLRICHS v. ROLLO.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

76 So. 37

200 Ala. 271

AHLRICHS v. ROLLO.

6 Div. 515

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 17, 1917

Appeal from Circuit Court, Cullman County; R.C. Brickell, Judge.

Action by Emil Ahlrichs against A.A. Rollo. Judgment for defendant and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Emil Ahlrichs, of Cullman, pro se.

F.E St. John, of Cullman, for appellee.

McCLELLAN J.

This is an action for damages brought by the appellant against the appellee, who was at the time of the commission of the wrongs of which plaintiff complains the sheriff of Cullman county. As we understand the complaint, the several counts charge either an assault and battery or false imprisonment as cause of the plaintiff's action. The plea was the general issue; and the trial was by the court without the intervention of a jury. The court, after hearing the evidence, concluded against the plaintiff, and rendered judgment for the defendant. Under the evidence the court was authorized to find that the plaintiff was properly arrested by a municipal officer of the city of Cullman for drunkenness; that, according to an arrangement in effect between the municipality and the sheriff as the custodian of the jail of Cullman county whereby that institution was used for the incarceration of municipal prisoners, the officer arresting the plaintiff secured the keys to the jail and placed the plaintiff therein as a municipal prisoner; that the sheriff did not actively participate in this incarceration of the plaintiff; that on the same date the municipal officer swore out a warrant before a justice of the peace against the plaintiff charging him with public drunkenness as an offense against the laws of the state of Alabama; that on that day the warrant issued by the justice of the peace, subsequent to the stated incarceration of the plaintiff, was delivered either to the sheriff or to one of his authorized deputies, who made return thereon as follows "Executed by arresting the within named defendant and placing him in jail;" that, the plaintiff being then in jail in virtue of his subjection to arrest and incarceration under municipal authority, the formal execution of the writ of arrest for public drunkenness in violation of the state statutes was not effected. Under the evidence the trial court was also authorized to find that the defendant not only did not violate any duty he owed the plaintiff with respect to the plaintiff's right to have bail (Taylor v. Smith, 104 Ala. 537, 16 So. 629; Hammons v. State, 59 Ala. 164, 31 Am.Rep. 13), but did not interfere with or delay the plaintiff in the plaintiff's ability to furnish a sufficient appearance bond as a condition to his release from custody.

If plaintiff's detention by the sheriff was under valid process, there was no affirmative obligation on the sheriff to release him from custody or to conduct him in search of sureties on an appearance bond.

Under the express provisions of Code, § 6703, a prosecution before the county court may be begun by affidavit taken before a justice of the peace of the county, and the warrant made returnable to the county court. Walker v. State, 89 Ala. 74, 8 So. 144; Harden v. State, 109 Ala. 50, 19 So. 494; Acts 1900-01, pp. 1342-1345, § 12. Manifestly the fact that jurisdiction of a misdemeanor for which such...