Holder v. Beavers

• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: EVANS, P.J.
• Citation: Holder v. Beavers, 141 Ga. 217, 80 S.E. 715 (Ga. 1914)
• Decision Date: 13 January 1914
• Parties: HOLDER v. BEAVERS, CHIEF OF POLICE.

80 S.E. 715

141 Ga. 217

HOLDER v. BEAVERS, CHIEF OF POLICE.

Supreme Court of Georgia

January 13, 1914

Syllabus by the Court.

Where a person accused of violating a municipal ordinance is brought before the municipal court having jurisdiction to try and punish offenders against the ordinance, and a formal charge is made against such person, and served on him according to law, it is not sufficient cause for his release in advance of the time set for trial, on writ of habeas corpus, that his arrest was unlawful.

The writ of habeas corpus is not an available remedy for the release from custody of a person charged with a violation of a municipal ordinance, on the ground that he has been previously put in jeopardy, where such person has an adequate remedy to review the judgment of the court, if adverse to his plea of autrefois acquit.

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; Geo. L. Bell, Judge.

Habeas corpus by Sam Holder against J. L. Beavers, Chief of Police. From a judgment refusing to discharge the applicant, he brings error. Affirmed.

Wm. M Smith, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Jas. L Mayson and W. D. Ellis, Jr., both of Atlanta, for defendant in error.

EVANS P.J.

Sam Holder applied for a writ of habeas corpus against the chief of police of the city of Atlanta, alleging his illegal detention at police headquarters. The respondent made his return, admitting some and denying other allegations of the application. The court heard evidence, and refused to discharge the applicant, and exception is taken to this judgment.

1. There was no traverse of the respondent's return, and the evidence did not conflict with it. From the evidence, it appears that the applicant was arrested by two policemen late on the afternoon of October 17th, and carried to police headquarters, and a charge was docketed against him of violating section 1640 of the City Code of Atlanta, commonly known as "the traveling blind tiger ordinance." He was served with a summons, in the prescribed form, to appear before the recorder's court on the afternoon of the next day, which was Saturday, and was incarcerated in the city prison in default of an appearance bond in the sum of $300. He was brought before the acting recorder at the time fixed for trial, and evidence was heard by the recorder. After one of the witnesses had testified in part, the recorder orally announced that applicant was not guilty of violating City Code, § 1640, but that the testimony indicated a violation of section 1489, which forbade the keeping of intoxicating liquors on hand for the purpose of unlawful sale. The recorder then changed the charge in the summons, which alleged a violation of section 1640, and substituted a charge of having violated section 1489, and continued the case to the following Tuesday. Applicant objected to the change in the charge against him, and to the continuance of the case and immediately applied for the writ...