Ex parte Denton, 6 Div. 160
Decision Date | 20 June 1957 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 160 |
Citation | 266 Ala. 279,96 So.2d 296 |
Parties | Ex parte James Herbert DENTON. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Roger F. Rice and Frank L. Parsons, Birmingham, for petitioner.
John Patterson, Atty. Gen., Bernard F. Sykes and Geo. Young, Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondent.
James Herbert Denton filed in this court on April 22, 1957, an original petition for mandamus to be directed to the Honorable Wallace Gibson, Judge of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County. It appears that petitioner is under indictment in Jefferson County for the offense of robbery. On April 12 he was arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty and his case was set for trial on April 22. On April 18 the attorneys for petitioner notified the solicitor that they would take the depositions of certain named witnesses on April 19, under the provisions of Act No. 375, appvd. Sept. 8, 1955, Acts 1955, p. 901, Code 1940, Tit. 7, § 474(1) et seq., Cumulative Pocket Part. Subpoenas were served on the witnesses. On April 19 the solicitor moved that the subpoenas be quashed on the ground that Act No. 375 does not apply to criminal cases. This motion was granted. It was then that petitioner instituted this proceeding seeking a writ requiring the respondent-judge to vacate the order granting said motion.
There is only one question presented and that is whether Act No. 375 is applicable to criminal cases. We issued the rule nisi in order to settle the question and thus avoid any continuing doubt as to the Act's applicability. The respondent-judge made answer to the rule, taking the position that the Act is applicable only to civil cases.
The question, as we see it, is purely one of legislative intent. In other words, did the legislature in enacting Act No. 375, intend that its provisions be applicable to criminal cases? In Ex parte Rice, 265 Ala. 454, 92 So.2d 16, 17, this court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kardy v. Shook
...the following: Luxenberg v. United States, 45 F.2d 497, 498 (C.A.4), cert. den. 283 U.S. 820, 51 S.Ct. 345, 75 L.Ed. 1436; Ex parte Denton, 266 Ala. 279, 96 So.2d 296; Bailey v. State, 227 Ark. 889, 302 S.W.2d 796, 798; Yannacone v. Municipal Court, 222 Cal.App.2d 72, 34 Cal.Rptr. 838; Kell......
-
Veith v. State
...therefore did not require young Larry Thomas to be subjected to an interview just prior to the inception of trial. Ex parte Denton, 266 Ala. 279, 96 So.2d 296. See also Smith v. State, 45 Ala.App. 63, 223 So.2d 605; Gallman v. State, 29 Ala.App. 264, 195 So. 768; Baker v. State (Fla.), 47 S......
-
Carruba v. Meeks
...in counties having a population of 500,000 or more (Ex parte Hanna, 267 Ala. 527, 103 So.2d 720), or to criminal cases (Ex parte Denton, 266 Ala. 279, 96 So.2d 296). Act 375, supra, has been made applicable to equity cases in counties having a population of not less than 100,000 nor more th......
-
Smith v. State
...the taking of depositions in civil cases, does not apply to criminal cases. This contention is absolutely correct. Ex parte Denton,266 Ala. 279, 96 So.2d 296; Ex parte Rice, 265 Ala. 454, 92 So.2d But Dr. Hazouri's deposition is not controlled by the above cited Code section. It is controll......