State ex rel. Mollineaux v. Madison County Court

• Decision Date: 15 December 1896
• Citation: 37 S.W. 1126,136 Mo. 323
• Parties: STATE ex rel. MOLLINEAUX v. MADISON COUNTY COURT.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

37 S.W. 1126

136 Mo. 323

STATE ex rel. MOLLINEAUX v. MADISON COUNTY COURT.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

December 15, 1896.

BAIL — REFUSAL — PRESUMPTION — CERTIORARI — COUNTY COURT RECORD.

1. It will be presumed, in the absence of anything to rebut it, on a proceeding to review refusal of bail to one indicted for murder, that "the proof [of guilt] is evident or the presumption great," in which case, by provision of Const. art. 2, § 24, he is not entitled to bail.

2. Refusal of bail will under no circumstances be disturbed, except on a showing of abuse of discretion.

3. Certiorari to review refusal of bail by the county court cannot bring up the evidence adduced before it on hearing of the writ of habeas corpus to obtain bail, the court being of statutory origin, and no provision having been made for preserving evidence taken before it and making it part of its record.

Certiorari by William A. Mollineaux to review proceedings of the county court of Madison county. Writ quashed.

Wm. N. Nalle and Wm. M. Morgan, for relator.

BURGESS, J.

Relator, indicted in the circuit court of Bollinger county for murder of the first degree, was committed to the jail of Madison county for safe-keeping; afterwards, at the August term, 1896, and on the 5th day of said month, in the county court of the county last named, he sued out of said court a writ of habeas corpus, directed to the sheriff and jailer of that county, returnable forthwith, requiring said sheriff to produce his body in court, and show cause, if any he could, for his detention, and why he should not be admitted to bail. To this writ the sheriff made return according to the facts heretofore stated. The county court, on hearing, refused to discharge the relator, or to admit him to bail, and remanded him to the custody and keeping of said sheriff. Thereafter, on the 20th day of August, 1896, relator made application to this court for a writ of certiorari, directed to the county court aforesaid, for the purpose of compelling said court to certify to this court a copy of the proceedings with respect to said writ of habeas corpus, in order that the same might be reviewed. In obedience to this writ the county court has caused to be certified to this court all the evidence introduced at the hearing of the habeas corpus by that body, which we are now asked to review, and, if it is found that error was committed by that court, to remand the cause to said court, with directions as to what course to pursue or disposition to make of the proceedings.

By section 3, art. 6, of the state constitution, the supreme court is given superintending control over all inferior courts, and power to issue writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto, certiorari, and other original remedial writs, and to hear and determine the same. So there can be no question as to its power to issue the writ of certiorari in this case, and to review the action of the county court in so far as such action was judicial, if at all, in refusing to admit the relator to bail. The writ lies to review the...