Ex parte King

• Decision Date: 03 May 1894
• Citation: 102 Ala. 182,15 So. 524
• Parties: EX PARTE KING.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

15 So. 524

102 Ala. 182

EX PARTE KING.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 3, 1894

Appeal from city court of Montgomery; Thomas M. Arrington, Judge.

Petition by M. B. King for a writ of habeas corpus for the purpose of obtaining his discharge from the custody of the sheriff, to which he had been committed for a violation of the act for the protection of landlords, etc. From a judgment refusing to discharge petitioner, and remanding him to the custody of the sheriff, the petitioner appeals. Affirmed.

W. S Reese, for petitioner.

Wm. L Martin, Atty. Gen., for respondent.

HARALSON J.

The petitioner put up at an hotel in Montgomery, and having no baggage, and being interrogated by the proprietor before going to his room, stated that he was a member of the Wells-Fargo Detective Agency, and thereupon the proprietor allowed him to board and lodge in the hotel. The defendant asked the proprietor, being examined as a witness for the state, if the fact of defendant saying he belonged to said detective agency was the cause of his letting the defendant have board and lodging, and the witness stated it was. He also testified that defendant owed three dollars for board and lodging, which he has never paid, and was arrested about 10 days after making said misrepresentations. Two other witnesses for the state testified that they knew the defendant, and he told them he was not a member of a detective agency, was "broke," and was trying to "beat" his way on the railroads. The defendant testified that he was a member of the Wells-Fargo Detective Agency, had received his commission while in Mexico, in January, 1894, and had never told Murphy and Jordan, the two state witnesses, that he was not a detective. He gave the same account as that deposed to by the proprietor of the hotel as to what passed between them at the time he came to the hotel and registered. In answer to the solicitor, he stated that he was in Florida on the 1st of January, 1894 and remained there four weeks. The mittimus of the justice of the peace committing defendant to jail bears date the 13th January, 1894, and the writ of habeas corpus the 1st of February, 1894. On this evidence the judge of the city court refused to discharge the petitioner. In this there was no error. On the evidence, there was probable cause to believe him to be guilty, and, a jury so finding, a court would not disturb their verdict.

There is nothing in the point raised in...