Crowley v. Gannon

• Court: Arizona Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: CUNNINGHAM, C. J.
• Citation: Crowley v. Gannon, 21 Ariz. 234, 186 P. 1117 (Ariz. 1920)
• Decision Date: 02 February 1920
• Docket Number: Criminal 474
• Parties: J. G. CROWLEY, as Town Marshal of the Town of Jerome, Yavapai County, Arizona, Appellant, v. JAMES GANNON, PAT RYAN, DAVID MOLARO, PAUL AIMAR, PATRICK SULLIVAN et al., Respondents

186 P. 1117

21 Ariz. 234

J. G. CROWLEY, as Town Marshal of the Town of Jerome, Yavapai County, Arizona, Appellant, v. JAMES GANNON, PAT RYAN, DAVID MOLARO, PAUL AIMAR, PATRICK SULLIVAN et al., Respondents

Criminal No. 474

Supreme Court of Arizona

February 2, 1920

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the County of Yavapai. J. J. Sweeney, Judge. Vacated and remanded.

Mr Perry M. Ling, County Attorney, for Appellant.

Mr Thomas J. Croaff, for Appellees.

OPINION

CUNNINGHAM, C. J.

The appellee James Gannon petitioned the superior court of Yavapai county, praying a writ of habeas corpus issue, directed to J. G. Crowley, as town marshal, commanding him to produce the petitioner and other persons named before the said court for the purpose of inquiring into the cause and legality of the imprisonment of said persons by said Crowley as such marshal. The petition sets forth: That the imprisonment of the petitioners was brought about through a conspiracy entered into by the said Crowley, as such town marshal, and W.S. Adams, the police judge of said town of Jerome, with one Robert Talley and many and divers other persons to the petitioners unknown. Such persons are charged in the petition as having "connived and conspired together to work an injustice and hardship upon your petitioners and to imprison them. That it was then and there arranged, agreed and understood by the aforesaid conspirators that the said Adams and the said Crowley should fraudulently, wickedly and maliciously, under the color and pretense of acting in their official capacity, cause the arrest of your petitioners for the purpose of satisfying the personal spite and malice of the said Robert Talley and the other persons unknown, as aforesaid, to your petitioners. That, in accordance with the said conspiracy and without acting in good faith, as officers of the town of Jerome, and with no intention of acting in their official capacity caused the arrest and imprisonment of all of your petitioners."

The petition then sets forth the steps in the going through the form of an arraignment on a charge of violating Ordinance No. 74, laws of said incorporated town, and charges that the police judge presiding over the court denied the petitioners the right to have legal counsel; pretended to sentence the petitioners to imprisonment for twenty-five days, and suggested, on request, that bail on appeal would be fixed at $1,000 for the "whole bunch." That the petitioners were confined in the basement of a hotel as a prison. The petitioners deny that they have violated any law of the state, including the said town ordinance. Upon the showing made by the petition, the writ was issued, requiring the town marshal to show cause of the imprisonment of the petitioners.

The appellant, as such town marshal, made return to the writ, setting forth that --

"Pursuant to the attached copy of commitment and certified copy of judgment issuing out of the police court of the town of Jerome, . . . I am holding, as town marshal, . . . the following: . . . " -- naming the petitioners, except certain named parties, who he denies having in custody.

Annexed to his said return, and as a part thereof, are exhibited a judgment of conviction in regular form, certified as a correct copy by W.S. Adams, as police judge, reciting that the defendants therein named had been charged, tried and convicted of violating Ordinance No. 74 of the ordinances of the incorporated town of Jerome, and by such magistrate had been sentenced to serve twenty-five days each in prison as punishment for such offense, and dated the thirteenth day of February, 1919. Accompanying this document is the commitment issued by the magistrate in regular form, requiring and commanding the town marshal, J. G. Crowley, to take and hold the persons named therein in his custody in the jail and there safety keep, etc.

The minute entries of February 19, 1919, show that the petitioners objected to the return upon the following grounds: First, because the commitment is faulty; second because the return "does not show that petitioners are being held by proper authority"; third, because the return "does not show that the trial court had jurisdiction." These objections were each duly overruled. The testimony of the petitioners was introduced, and the facts settled by a bill of exceptions. The oral testimony given principally by the petitioners who were sworn is, in substance, as follows: Some of the petitioners were standing in front of a store when a police officer directed them to move on because, as he claimed, they were blockading the sidewalk. The policeman gave such order immediately...