Ex parte Charleston
| Decision Date | 25 July 1895 |
| Citation | 18 So. 224,107 Ala. 688 |
| Parties | EX PARTE CHARLESTON. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal by William Charleston for a writ of mandamus to compel the hearing of a petition for habeas corpus. Granted.
The petition averred the following facts: William Charleston was arrested and carried before a justice of the peace of Marengo county on the charge of bastardy. Upon investigation of said charge, the justice of the peace decided that there was probable cause for believing the said Charleston guilty as charged, and fixed his appearance bond at $200. In default of said bond, he was committed to jail under a mittimus of the justice of the peace regularly issued. After his commitment to jail, the said William Charleston petitioned to the probate judge of Marengo county for a writ of habeas corpus. Upon the return of the sheriff to said writ, the petition for habeas corpus was demurred to, on the ground that the probate judge had no jurisdiction to grant the writ prayed for because the petitioner was imprisoned by virtue of a mittimus charging him with having committed the offense of bastardy "the determination of which is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace, and the finding of the justice of the peace, after his jurisdiction has attached, is final as to the determination of the probable cause; and his determination cannot be reviewed by writ of habeas corpus." This demurrer was sustained, and the petition for habeas corpus dismissed by the probate judge. Thereupon the petitioner filed the present petition addressed to the supreme court, asking for a writ of mandamus to be issued to the judge of probate of Marengo county commanding him to hear and determine the petition for habeas corpus.
C. K. Abrahams, for petitioner.
I. I. Canterbury, for defendant.
Proceedings in a case of bastardy partake of the nature of both a civil and a criminal suit, and are quasi criminal. A party charged with bastardy, may be arrested and carried before a justice of the peace, and if, on examination, it appear there is probable cause for believing him to be guilty, he must be required to give bond for his appearance at the next term of the circuit court, and in default of giving bond and surety required, he must be committed to jail. The duty of the justice in such a case, as it is in many offenses with which parties are charged before him, is purely preliminary. Imprisonment follows, in default of a bond, in the same way just as surely and effectually as in a purely criminal case, and it may be as unlawful in the one as in the other. Collins v. State, 78 Ala. 434; Smith v. State, 73 Ala. 11. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tillman v. Walters
...... exercise its superintendence and control over inferior. tribunals under section 140 of the Constitution. Ex parte L. & N.R.R., 58 So. 315, 176 Ala. 631, Ex parte Croom & May, 19. Ala. 566. If, therefore, there is no statute providing for a. review by the Court ... security for costs on appeal in the civil contempt of. McEntire v. McEntire (Ala.Sup.) 104 So. 804, and Ex. parte Charleston, 18 So. 224, 107 Ala. 688, where the charge. was bastardy, partaking of both a civil and a criminal suit;. and Morrow v. Bird, 6 Ala. 834, a debtor ......
-
Welford v. Havard
...... wrong inflicted upon the plaintiff and [127 Miss. 90] upon. society. The court's attention is especially called to. the case of Ex parte Bridgforth, 77 Miss. 418. The court in. this case said, among other things, in speaking of our. Bastardy statute, "it is in the nature of a ......
- Hoadley v. Purifoy
-
Knight v. Farrell
...cause without the intervention of a jury, or, unless he may desire to make answer to the petition and controvert the same. Ex parte Charleston (Ala.) 18 So. 224; Ex parte Garland, 42 Ala. 559. Rule nisi for granted. ...