Kinkaid v. Jackson
| Decision Date | 25 November 1913 |
| Citation | 66 Fla. 378,63 So. 706 |
| Parties | KINKAID, Marshal v. JACKSON. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Suwannee County; Mallory F. Horne, Judge.
Habeas corpus by John Jackson against J. F. Kinkaid, Marshal. Judgment for petitioner, and defendant brings error. Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
The first eight amendments to the federal Constitution have reference only to powers exercised by the government of the United States and not to those of the states.
Habeas corpus cannot be used to take the place or to serve the purpose of a writ of error to determine whether a judgment is erroneous, when the court has jurisdiction of the person and the conviction is of an offense under the law and within the jurisdiction of the court to try.
A person held in custody under sentence of a municipal court upon a conviction on a charge based on an ordinance alleged to be void, may test the validity of the ordinance in habeas corpus proceedings and may be discharged from custody if the ordinance is void.
A Municipal ordinance providing that any person convicted of fighting shall be fined in a sum not exceeding $500 or imprisoned in the city prison at hard labor on the streets or other public works of the city for a period not exceeding three months, or by both fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the mayor, is not a violation of section 8 of the Declaration of Rights in the state Constitution, which forbids the imposing of 'excessive fines' or the infliction of 'cruel and unusual punishment.'
COUNSEL A. Lee Humphreys, of Live Oak, for plaintiff in error.
Davis & Whitnell, of Jasper, for defendant in error.
John Jackson was convicted of fighting in the mayor's court of the city of Live Oak and sentenced to pay a fine of $500, and also to confinement in the city prison for a period of 90 days. He sued out a writ of habeas corpus and, upon a hearing before the circuit judge, was ordered to be discharged. J. F Kinkaid, the marshal of the city of Live Oak, has brought this judgment here for review by writ of error. It is conceded that the ordinance of the city of Live Oak, under which Jackson was convicted, provides that 'Any person in this city who shall brawl, quarrel, fight, commit mischief, or otherwise behave in a disorderly manner, and any person who shall assist, encourage or promote the same, * * * shall be fined in a sum not exceeding five hundred dollars or imprisoned in the city prison at hard labor on the streets or other public works of the city for a period not exceeding three nonths, or by both fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the mayor.' It was successfully urged before the circuit judge that the ordinance in question was violative both of the eighth amendment to the Constitution of the United States and of section eight of the Declaration of Rights in the state Constitution, each of which forbids the imposing of 'excessive fines' or the infliction of 'cruel and unusual punishment.' As to the federal Constitution, we have held that the first eight amendments thereto have reference only to powers exercised by the government of the United States and not to those of the states. Pittman v. State, 51 Fla. 94, 41 So. 385, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 509. See, also, Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 29 S.Ct. 14, 53 L.Ed. 97; Pervear v. Massachusetts, 5 Wall. 475, 18 L.Ed. 608; Spies v. Illinois, 123 U.S. 131, 8 S.Ct. 22, 31 L.Ed. 80. We must now consider whether or not the sentence inposed is violative of section 8 of the Declaration of Rights of our state Constitution. As we have often held: 'Habeas corpus cannot be used to take the place, or to serve the purpose, of a writ of error to determine whether a judgment is erroneous, when the court has jurisdiction of the person and the conviction is of an offense under the law and within the jurisdiction of the court to try.' Hardee v. Brown, 56 Fla. 377, 47 So. 834. As is further held in the cited case:...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dutton Phosphate Co. v. Priest
... ... to the state laws or government. [67 Fla. 377] Ensign v ... Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 227 U.S. 592, 33 S.Ct ... 321, 57 L.Ed. 658; Kinkaid v. Jackson, 66 Fla. 378, ... 63 So. 706. But the guaranties of due process of law and of ... equal protection of the laws contained in the ... ...
-
Amos v. Gunn
...unless it is plainly and undoubtedly in excess of any reasonable requirements for redressing the wrong. See 16 C.J. 1358; Kinkaid v. Jackson, 66 Fla. 378, 63 So. 706; Baeumel v. State, 26 Fla. 71, 7 So. 371; v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 30 S.Ct. 544, 54 L.Ed. 793, 19 Ann. Cas. 705. In th......
-
Ex Parte Amos
... ... So. 604, L. R. A. 1918B, 1148; Thorp v. Smith, 64 ... Fla. 154, 59 So. 193; Hardee v. Brown, 56 Fla. 377, ... 47 So. 834; Kinkaid v. Jackson, 66Fla. 378, 63 So ... 706; Pounds v. Darling, 75 Fla. 125, 77 So. 666, L ... R. A. 1918E, 949; Cason v. Quincy, 60 Fla. 35, 53 ... ...
-
Demeter Land Co. v. Florida Public Service Co.
... ... Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 29 S.Ct. 14, 53 ... L.Ed. 97; Thorington v. Montgomery, 147 U.S. 490, 13 ... S.Ct. 394, 37 L.Ed. 525; Kinkaid v. Jackson, 66 Fla ... 378, 63 So. 706; Pittman v. State, 51 Fla. 94, 41 ... So. 385, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 509. The Constitutions of many of ... ...