Crooke v. Van Pelt
| Decision Date | 17 June 1918 |
| Citation | 76 Fla. 20,79 So. 166 |
| Parties | CROOKE v. VAN PELT, Sheriff. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Court of Record, Escambia County; C. M. Jones, Judge.
Habeas corpus by Albert Crooke against James C. Van Pelt, Sheriff of Escambia County, Fla. Motion to quash return overruled, and petitioner remanded to the custody of the Sheriff, and he brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Where habeas corpus is invoked to obtain the discharge of a person held in custody to answer a charge of crime, it must be shown that the statute under which the charge is made is invalid or that the charge as made is not merely defective in its allegations, but that it wholly fails to state an offense under the law.
The writ of habeas corpus cannot be used as a substitute for a motion to quash or a writ of error or an appeal.
A criminal charge is not fatally defective because it does not allege defensive matter not a part of the definition of the offense charged.
COUNSEL R. P. Reese, of Pensacola, for plaintiff in error.
John P Stokes, of Pensacola, for defendant in error.
The plaintiff in error entered a plea of guilty, and was duly sentenced by the trial court upon a count in an information duly filed against him which is in the following words:
'And your informant aforesaid, prosecuting as aforesaid, upon his oath aforesaid, further information makes that Albert Crooke, at and in the county of Escambia, state of Florida aforesaid, on the 28th day of October, A. D. 1917, did then and there kill a certain steer without inspection by a regularly appointed inspector.'
Thereafter he executed and delivered to the sheriff of the county a bond to pay the fine and cost imposed by the court upon him, but having failed to do so, the sheriff took him into custody for the purpose of requiring him to serve the alternative sentence of imprisonment imposed by the court.
Thereupon upon petition therefor, a writ of habeas corpus was taken, but upon a hearing on such writ and return thereto, in which the foregoing facts were set up, a motion to quash the return was overruled, and the plaintiff in error was by the judgment of the court remanded to the custody of the sheriff.
To review this judgment writ of error was allowed and taken from this court.
The order of the court remanding the petitioner is assigned as error, and it is urged here that the information charges no offense against the laws of the state.
The prosecution is based upon section 1 of chapter 5665, Acts of 1907, which provides:
'That from and after the passage of this act it shall be unlawful for any person or persons, firm or corporation to kill for any purposes any bull, steer, cow, heifer, yearling or calf in the State of Florida without inspection by a regularly appointed inspector except as is provided in section 2 of this act.'
By the exception referred to in section 2 of the statute the owner of such an animal may by himself or his agent butcher it 'in the presence of one or more disinterested reputable persons' without being held to have violated the provisions of the statute.
In the case of In re Robinson, 73 Fla. 1068, 75 So. 604, this court held that:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex Parte Amos
...125, 77 So. 666, L. R. A. 1918E, 949; Cason v. Quincy, 60 Fla. 35, 53 So. 741; Ex parte Davidson, 76 Fla. 272, 79 So. 727; Crooke v. Van Pelt, 76 Fla. 20, 79 So. 166. other cases the court examined the statute under which the charge was made, and, finding it invalid, discharged the petition......
-
Jones v. Cook
...Davidson, 76 Fla. 272, 79 So. 727; Bass v. Doolittle, 93 Fla. 993, 112 So. 892; McLeod v. Chase, 95 Fla. 736a, 116 So. 858; Crooke v. Van Pelt, 76 Fla. 20, 79 So. 166. The writ of habeas corpus cannot be used as a substitute for a demurrer, a motion to quash, a writ of error, writ of coram ......
-
State Ex Rel. O'berry v. Pearson
... ... Fla. 272, 79 So. 727; Bass v. Doolittle, 93 Fla ... 993, 112 So. 892; McLeod v. Chase, 95 Fla. 736 a, ... 116 So. 858; Crooke v. Van Pelt, 76 Fla. 20, 79 So ... The ... next question is: Can a court on a habeas corpus proceeding ... take testimony to determine ... ...
-
Haile v. Gardner
... ... Ex parte Prince, 27 Fla. 196, 9 So. 659, 26 Am. St. Rep. 67; ... In re Robinson, 73 Fla. 1068, 75 So. 604, L. R. A ... 1918B, 1148; Crooke v. Van Pelt, 76 Fla. 20, 79 So ... 166; Gallagher v. McGourin, 218 U.S. 442, 31 S.Ct ... 44, 54 L.Ed. 1101, 21 Ann. Cas. 849; 12 R. C. L. 1186, ... ...