In re E. G. Mcallister

• Decision Date: 21 January 1924
• Parties: IN RE E. G. MCALLISTER
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

123 A. 207

97 Vt. 359

IN RE E. G. MCALLISTER

Supreme Court of Vermont

January 21, 1924

January Term, 1924.

PETITION to the Supreme Court of Windsor County by E. G McAllister for a writ of habeas corpus to secure his discharge from the House of Correction. The opinion states the case.

It is adjudged that the relator is not illegally deprived of his liberty and he is remanded to the House of Correction whence he was taken, and his petition is dismissed.

Robert E. Susena for the relator.

Glenn C. Howland, State's attorney for the State.

Present WATSON, C. J., POWERS, TAYLOR, SLACK, and BUTLER, JJ.

OPINION

SLACK

The relator was convicted by the Hartford municipal court, on August 5, 1922, of possessing intoxicating liquor in violation of the laws of this State, and was thereupon sentenced to be confined in the House of Correction for the term of not less than six months nor more than one year; the sentence was suspended and he was placed in the care and custody of the State probation officer upon certain conditions, one of which was that he should not use or keep on the premises occupied by him, any intoxicating liquor. On December 22, 1923, the sheriff of Windsor county searched the relator's premises and there found a quantity of intoxicating liquor. Two days later, the relator was arrested and taken before the court wherein he was convicted as above stated, on the charge of having violated the conditions of his probation, and after hearing thereon, the court adjudged that he had violated the conditions of his probation, and ordered that he be committed on the original sentence, and thereupon, issued the mittimus upon which he was committed to the House of Correction, and is there detained at the present time.

This petition for a writ of habeas corpus is brought to secure the relator's release from that commitment, and is based solely upon the ground that he had no knowledge that the intoxicating liquor found on his premises on December 22 1923, was there, and the further ground claimed in oral argument, that he did not have a legal trial on the question of whether he had violated the conditions of his probation, because of certain claimed irregularities in that trial. That he is not entitled to the relief sought, on either ground, is too obvious to justify an extended discussion. Whether he knew of the presence of the liquor on his premises will not be inquired into in these...