Godfree v. Peak

• Decision Date: 04 February 1929
• Docket Number: No. 4770.,4770.
• Citation: 58 App. DC 364,30 F.2d 988
• Parties: GODFREE v. PEAK, Superintendent, etc.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

58 App. DC 364, 30 F.2d 988 (1929)

GODFREE v. PEAK, Superintendent, etc.

No. 4770.

Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.

Submitted December 5, 1928.

Decided February 4, 1929.

Rehearing Denied February 23, 1929.

Ralph Cusick, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

R. B. Keech, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.

MARTIN, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of the lower court dismissing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and remanding the petitioner to jail to serve a sentence imposed upon him by the police court.

The defendant below, now the appellant, was tried and convicted in the police court for the offense of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and was sentenced to serve a term in jail. He filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled. He then gave notice of his intention to apply to this court for a writ of error, and was released under bond pending the determination of the proposed application.

In order to secure such a writ of error, the defendant was bound under Rule XXVI of this court to present a bill of exceptions if necessary to the police court within five days after final judgment, and the police judge was required to settle and sign the bill within ten days after its receipt by him, and to file the same immediately in the cause, unless the time for signing it was extended by the judge before the expiration of the ten days. The rule also required that all writs of error must be applied for in this court within five days from the day on which the bill of exceptions was filed, and not afterwards.

It appears that the defendant within five days after final judgment regularly presented his bill of exceptions to the police judge for his signature, but the judge refused to sign it or extend the time within which it should be signed. The judge based his ruling upon rule 2 of the police court, which reads in part as follows: "Counsel for both parties shall agree upon said bill of exceptions and submit the same to the court for settling within ten days after submission unless by order of the court further time is allowed, within the said ten days, otherwise the court will refuse to sign the same." Inasmuch as the counsel for both parties in the case had not agreed upon the bill of exceptions as presented to the police judge, the judge refused to sign the same, and after the lapse of ten days ordered the defendant to be committed under the sentence of the court.

The defendant then filed a petition in habeas corpus in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, claiming that the aforesaid rule of the police court under which the police judge had acted was a nullity, and that the defendant thereby had been denied his right to apply to this court within proper time for a writ of error. He claimed accordingly that the order of commitment was illegal, and prayed to be discharged from custody. The court, after hearing the cause, entered a qualified order which provided that the defendant should be discharged from custody, "but without prejudice to further proceedings not inconsistent with the ruling of the Court in the case of District of Columbia versus Charles A. Godfree, Number 99,040 in the Police Court of the District of...