Stake v. Barton
| Decision Date | 30 November 1864 |
| Citation | 34 Ga. 99 |
| Parties | Elijah J. Stake, enrolling officer, plaintiff in error. vs. Robert T. Barton, defendant in error. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Habeas Corpus. Decided by Judge Hook. At Chambers, June, 1864.
The decision below was upon a writ of habeas corpus sued out by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error, returnable before Judge Hook at Chambers.
The question made was as to the exemption of Barton, the defendant in error, from military service in the army of the Confederate States, on the ground that he was a physician, over thirty years of age, and engaged in the actual and regular practice of his profession for seven years prior to the 17th day of February 1864, the date of the act of Congress entitled, " An act to raise forces to serve during the war."
At the hearing, the parties being at issue upon the matters of fact involved in this ground, they both introduced evidence. Barton proved by his father (who also was a physician,) that he was born in 1832, received his diploma from the Medical College of Georgia, in March 1856; entered immediately on the practice, and from that time forth, had been, and still was, in the regular practice of his profes-sion, all the while dependant solely upon it for the support of himself and family, and not once engaging in any other business or occupation; that in 1856 and 1862-3-4, he practiced with his father in Richmond county, and during the intermediate years, in the counties of Jefferson, Columbia, and Burke, a part of the time in each, respectively. By two other witnesses, he proved that he practiced in Richmond county in 1856-7; and by three others, that he practiced in the same county in 1862-3-4; by two others, that he practiced in Jefferson county in 1857-8; by two others, that he practiced in Columbia county in 1859; and by three others, that he practiced in Burke county in 1861. He also introduced his account books containing charges for medical services from 1856 to 1861.
The enrolling officer proved by the Assessor and the Collector of taxes for the Confederate States, that Barton had neither registered as a physician, nor paid the special tax as such, required by the acts of Congress; also, by one of these witnesses, that Barton, after setting up his claim to exemption, upon being told by the Assessor that he would now have to register, replied that he would willingly pay a thousand dollars to obtain his exemption.
By the Collector of State taxes for the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perkins v. Courson
...the reviewing Court it there be enough to support it, although there may have been other testimony strongly in conflict with it.' Starr v. Barton, 34 Ga. 99. The determination of what is for the best interests of the child is a matter resting in the discretion of the trial court, and such d......
-
Beavers v. Williams
... ... Georgia ... Iron & Coal Co., 117 Ga. 305, 312, 43 S.E. 780, 61 L.R.A ... 739. See also Code, §§ 50-114, 50-121, 50-119; Starr v ... Barton, 34 Ga. 99; Sumner v. Sumner, 117 Ga ... 229(4), 43 S.E. 485; Harwell v. Gay, 186 Ga. 80, ... 84(1), 196 S.E. 758. There is here no complaint ... ...
-
Bailey v. Warlick
...the reviewing Court if there be enough to support it, although there may have been other testimony strongly in conflict with it.' Starr v. Barton, 34 Ga. 99. determination of what is for the best interests of the child is a matter resting in the discretion of the trial court, and such discr......
-
Balkcom v. Vickers
...refused to set aside habeas corpus judgments holding the restraint illegal where there was any evidence to support them. In Starr v. Barton, 34 Ga. 99 (full bench and unreversed), decided one hundred years ago, this court, in reviewing a judgment in favor of the petitioner, stated the rule ......