State v. Morgan

Citation75 So. 441,114 Miss. 634
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
Decision Date21 May 1917
PartiesSTATE v. MORGAN

March 1917

Division A

APPEAL from the circuit court of Lee county, HON. CLAUDE CLAYTON Judge.

Lon Morgan was charged with enticing away a servant, and on arrest sued out a writ of habeas corpus against G. W. Long sheriff. From a judgment discharging relator, the sheriff appeals.

A justice of the peace of Webster county issued a warrant directed to any officer of Lee county for the arrest of appellee, which warrant commanded the officer to bring the appellee before said justice of the peace on a charge of willfully and unlawfully enticing away one Shafer, a minor who had contracted with one Gibson for a specified time, before the expiration of his contract and without the consent of his employer. The sheriff of Lee county arrested the appellee under the above warrant and was preparing to return him to Webster county, when appellee sued out a writ of habeas corpus before the circuit judge alleging that the law under which he was being prosecuted (section 1146, Code 1906) was unconstitutional and void, and that he was unlawfully deprived of his liberty. The sheriff answered the petition filed by appellee, and exhibited the warrant directed to him by the justice of the peace of Webster county. On the trial, over the objection of the respondent, the appellee was permitted to introduce testimony going to show that he was innocent of the charge preferred against him, and the trial judge entered a judgment discharging appellee, said judgment being as follows:

"Came on to be heard this cause . . . on petition for writ of habeas corpus, fiat, writ, answer of G. W. Long, sheriff, and testimony taken in open court; and, it appearing to the satisfaction of the court that the relief prayed for in the petition should be granted, and that Lon Morgan is unlawfully held and restrained of his liberty by said G. W. Long, sheriff, it is therefore ordered that said Lon Morgan be discharged and set at liberty."

Reversed and remanded.

J. E. Rankin, for appellant.

Over the objection of the attorney for the respondent the petitioner was permitted to introduce testimony to the effect that he was innocent of the offense set out in the warrant, and the petitioner was released from custody.

In reply to the first contention of the appellee to the effect that the law (section 1146 of the Code of 1906) is unconstitutional and void, we desire to say that said section has been held valid by this court in the case of Hoole v. Dorrah, 22 So. 829.

In that case the court said: "We have not been able to see wherein it (the section above referred to) is obnoxious to any of the provisions of the federal or state constitutions."

The question whether or not the petitioner had violated any law was not a subject of inquiry on the trial of the writ of habeas corpus. This was a matter of defense and should have been reserved for the trial court in Webster county. "Mere matters of defense must be reserved for decision in the trial court." 21 Cyc. 325. Citing Ex Parte Collier, 12 So. 597.

In that case the petitioner was arrested by the sheriff of Washington county on a writ issued by a justice of the peace, on a charge that he had escaped from the custody of the city contractor for prisoners, and the sheriff had him in custody when the writ of habeas corpus was issued, by virtue of the writ issued by the justice of the peace. The relator relied on the fact that his former imprisonment was not legal because he was not given his warrant of detention, as the law directs, and therefore, could not be tried for such escape. On the trial he was remanded to the custody of the sheriff, and he appealed and assigned as error: "That the court erred in not considering the fact as to whether the relator was, at the time he was delivered to the convict contractor by the city authorities, given his warrant of detention as such convict, according to law."

The case was affirmed by the supreme court, and in passing upon the question CAMPBELL, C. J., said: "The matter which petitioner desired to litigate is matter of defense on trial of the charge on which he was arrested and held by the sheriff, and was not available on the habeas corpus. The prisoner was properly remanded in custody."

We submit that the question whether or not the petitioner in this case had violated any law in Webster county, was not a subject for investigating by the circuit court of Lee county on a wirt of habeas corpus, but should have been reserved for the trial court in Webster county.

The circuit court of Lee county was without jurisdiction to investigate the petitioner's guilt or innocence of the crime with which he was charged in Webster county. Section 2456 of the Code of 1906 reads as follows: "The writ of habeas...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Rogers v. Jones
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • March 27, 1961
    ...under lawful judgment.' The guilt or innocence of a defendant is not to be inquired into on habeas corpus hearing. See State v. Morgan, 114 Miss. 634, 75 So. 441. The chief historical ground for the issuance of a habeas corpus writ and the release of a prisoner is the lack of jurisdiction o......
  • Ray v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • December 22, 1969
    ...(1952); Shook v. State, 212 Miss. 472, 54 So.2d 728 (1951). The guilt or innocence on habeas corpus is not material. State v. Morgan, 114 Miss. 634, 75 So. 441 (1917). Evidence for revocation does not have to be beyond a reasonable doubt. McLemore v. State, 170 Miss. 641, 155 So. 415 An ord......
  • Boudreaux v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • November 2, 1936
    ... ... Oliver, 127 Miss. 208, 89 So. 915, the Supreme Court ... held that the habeas corpus court had the right to inquire ... into the guilt or innocence of the petitioner "provided ... no indictment had been returned by the grand jury." ... State ... v. Morgan, 114 Miss. 634, 75 So. 441; Wall v. Quin, ... 148 Miss. 335, 114 So. 744 ... We ... submit that where there is a good and valid indictment and ... neither bail nor a speedy trial has been denied, the court on ... a habeas corpus hearing cannot inquire into the guilt nor ... ...
  • Roberts v. Gay
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • June 4, 1917
    ... ... In ... reply to this we respectfully insist that counsel are ... mistaken as to the law in this state as announced by our ... court in Ball v. Sledge, 82 Miss. 749 and in ... Johnson v. Tabor, 101 Miss. 79 and in Thompson ... v. Poe, 104 Miss. 586 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT