Ex parte Jones

• Decision Date: 08 January 1892
• Citation: 94 Ala. 33,10 So. 429
• Parties: EX PARTE JONES.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

10 So. 429

94 Ala. 33

EX PARTE JONES.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 8, 1892

Application of Lewis Jones for mandamus to the city court of Selma to grant a writ of habeas corpus for the purpose of giving bail. Denied.

J W. Mabry, for petitioner.

Wm. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

MCCLELLAN J.

The petitioner, upon being arrested on a warrant charging him with murder, waived preliminary examination before the justice of the peace before whom the warrant was returnable and was thereupon committed to jail without bail, to await the action of the grand jury of Dallas county. He then applied to the judge of the city court of Selma for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the offense for which he had been committed was on the facts a bailable one, and praying that he be brought before the judge on said writ that a hearing on the facts be then had; and that he be allowed to give bail. Judge HARRALSON of the city court refused to award the writ of habeas corpus, and said Jones now applies to this court for a mandamus directing and requiring said judge to award the same, and proceed thereunder to examine into the matter as prayed in the original petition. The application made here must be denied. If the petitioner has any remedy it is not mandamus. That remedy can only be invoked when a specific legal right is clearly shown, and there is no other adequate remedy for its enforcement. 3 Brick. Dig. p. 625, §§ 2-4. Assuming that petitioner was entitled to the writ, and of consequence that its refusal was erroneous, his remedy lay in a renewal of his application therefor to this court, which could either grant the writ absolutely or declare his right to it, so that, upon a second application to the judge of the city court, or other officer authorized to act in the premises, his right would be effectuated. Code, § 675; Const art. 6, § 2; Ex parte Chaney, 8 Ala. 424. Mandamus, moreover, does not lie to control judicial action. It never issues to direct a judicial officer how to act, or what conclusion to reach, upon a judicial question, but only to compel some action when a matter is presented for decision before an officer charged in that regard, and he refuses to hear and determine it. Ramagnano v. Crook, 85 Ala. 226, 3 South. Rep. 845; Dunbar v. Frazer, 78 Ala. 538. Now, whether the writ of habeas corpus will be awarded in any case is a judicial question. It is not to be granted as matter of...