Ex Parte William Samuel And David Slivoo.

• Decision Date: 10 May 1918
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: Ex Parte William Samuel and David Slivoo.

82 W.Va. 486

Ex Parte William Samuel and David Slivoo.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted May 10, 1918.

Decided May 10, 1918.

. 1. Justices op the Peace Docket Contents.

The docket of a justice of the peace is only prima facie evidence of what it contains, (p. 487).

2. Habeas Corpus Preliminary Hearing Evidence Discharge.

One charged with an offense in a warrant issued by a justice of the peace, and committed by such justice after a hearing upon said warrant, will be discharged from custody upon a writ of habeas corpus where it is shown that no competent evidence was introduced upon such hearing tending to show the guilt of the accused on such charge, and. he did not waive a preliminary hearing thereon. (p. 488).

Habeas Corpus by William Samuel and David Slivoo against J. E. Shreves, Jailer, etc.

Petitioners discharged. A. M. & Neil Cunningham, for petitioners.

E. T. England, Attorney General, and Henry Nolle, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Ritz, Judge:

The petitioners were arrested upon a warrant issued by a justice of the peace of Randolph county charging them with obtaining money by false pretenses, the exact charge being that they solicited money from, sundry people ostensibly for the purpose of relieving the Armenian and Syrian Christians in western Asia, when in fact the money was used, and to be used, for no such purpose. Petitioners were brought before the justice of the peace, and upon a hearing they were held to await the action of the grand jury upon the charge made against them, and have since been confined in the jail of Randolph county. They seek their discharge upon habeas corpus, alleging that there was no evidence introduced before the justice tending to support the charge against them; that the only evidence there offered was that they had solicited and received funds for the purpose above mentioned, and that one witness testified that he did not believe their credentials were genuine, or that the funds solicited were for the purpose claimed; that said witness, however, testified that he knew nothing about them, did not know them, and had no information whatever upon the subject. Statements made by him before the justice, as shown by the petition filed in this case, were not evidence at all under any of the rules governing the admission of evidence, but were simply an expression of the opinion of the witness for which there was absolutely no foundation. This allegation of the petition is fully supported by affidavits accompanying the same, and is not controverted by the return. The justice's docket recites that the petitioners were brought before him on the warrant, and that after hearing the evidence he found it to be sufficient to hold them to answer an indictment and committed them to jail in default of bail. The Attorney General contends that this recital in the justice's docket is not overcome by the petition verified by the affidavits of both petitioners, and by the affidavits of others filed in support thereof. The docket of a justice of the peace is not conclusive, but only prima facie evidence of what it contains. It is subject to be overthrown welter, 78 W. Va. 214. In this case the...