Wall v. Quin
| Decision Date | 21 November 1927 |
| Docket Number | 26703 |
| Citation | 148 Miss. 335,114 So. 744 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | WALL v. QUIN et al. [*] |
(Division A.)
1. CRIMINAL LAW. That arrest was illegal did not affect validity of charges of unlawfully carrying concealed weapons, for which petitioner was held.
That arrest of petitioner, seeking writ of habeas corpus, on warrant issued by justice of peace in Louisiana directed to Louisiana sheriff was illegal did not affect validity of charges of unlawfully carrying concealed weapons pending before justice of the peace and before police justice, who had also issued warrants for his arrest, and for which charges he was held.
2. HABEAS CORPUS. Question of admissibility of evidence, secured as result of unlawful arrest at trial could not be determined in habeas corpus proceeding.
Question of admissibility of evidence, secured as result of unlawful arrest and search, at trial of accused on charges of unlawfully carrying concealed weapons could not be determined in habeas corpus proceeding.
3. HABEAS CORPUS. Guilt of petitioner could not be determined in habeas corpus proceeding.
Guilt or innocence of petitioner of offenses with which he was charged, and for which he was held, could not be determined in habeas corpus proceeding, such question being for determination of justice of peace and police justice before whom writs upon which petitioner was arrested were returnable.
4. HABEAS CORPUS. Disqualification of justice of peace for pecuniary interest in prosecution could not be attacked by habeas corpus proceeding.
Disqualification of justice of peace on account of pecuniary interest in result of prosecution for crime for which petitioner was held could not be collaterally attacked in habeas corpus proceeding.
5 EXTRADITION. Affidavit charging petitioner with being fugitive from justice held in due and proper form (Hemingway's Code 1927, section 1369).
Affidavit charging petitioner was "a fugitive from justice, from the parish of Tangipahoa, state of Louisiana, an indictment having been returned by a grand jury of said parish and state, on January 18, 1927, charging the defendant with resisting an officer, the crime being a felony in said state as shown by Acts 1865 of Revised Statute of said state," held in due and proper form, under Hemingway's Code 1927 section 1369 (Code 1906, section 1542).
6 EXTRADITION. Warrant for arrest of petitioner as fugitive from justice, commanding he be forthwith arrested and brought before justice, made warrant returnable instanter, and no other return day was required (Hemingway's Code 1927 sections 1369 and 1370).
Warrant for arrest of petitioner as fugitive from justice, commanding that petitioner be forthwith arrested and brought before justice of peace to answer charge, in effect, made warrant returnable before justice of peace instanter, and no other or later return day was required to be named therein, under Hemingway's Code 1927, sections 1369 and 1370 (Code 1906, sections 1542, 1543).
7. BAIL. Justice of peace and police justice before whom warrants for arrest of petitioner for carrying concealed weapons were made returnable had authority to fix amount of bail and to take recognizance.
Justice of peace and police justice before whom warrants for arrest of petitioner for unlawfully carrying concealed weapons was made returnable had full authority to fix amount of bail to be required of him and to take his recognizance or bond.
8. HABEAS CORPUS. Relator held duty charged before court having jurisdiction and not illegally restrained, and habeas corpus was properly refused.
Where affidavits charging relator with commission of offenses were valid and sufficiently charged commission of crimes within jurisdiction of officers issuing same, and relator was not denied bail or right to speedy trial or examination thereon, he was not illegally confined nor restrained of his liberty, and chancellor properly refused to grant writ of habeas corpus.
APPEAL from chancery court of Pike county.
HON. R. W. CUTRER, Chancellor.
Petition for a writ of habeas corpus by Nin Wall against O. P. Quin and others. From a decree dismissing the petition, petitioner appeals. Affirmed.
Affirmed.
Williams & Hunt and J. S. McGuire, for appellant.
An officer in Mississippi cannot execute a warrant issued in another state. Jud. Code U.S. sec. 57; U. S. Comp. St., sec. 1039; U. S. Rev. St., sec. 716-1014; U. S. Comp. St., secs. 1239-1674; Passett v. Chase, Sheriff (Fla.), 107 So. 689.
Any evidence procured by unlawful search or seizure is inadmissible. Faulkner v. State, 134 Miss. 253, 98 So. 691; Tucker v. State, 128 Miss. 211, 90 So. 845, 24 A. L. R. 1377; Williams v. State, 129 Miss. 469, 92 So. 584; Butler v. State, 129 Miss. 778; 93 So. 3; State v. Patterson, 130 Miss. 680, 95 So. 96; Smith v. State, 133 Miss. 730, 98 So. 344; Owens v. State, 133 Miss. 753, 98 So. 233; Strangi v. State, 134 Miss. 31, 98 So. 340; Taylor v. State, 134 Miss. 110, 98 So. 459; Rignall v. State, 134 Miss. 169, 98 So. 444; McCarty v. Gulfport, 134 Miss. 644, 99 So. 501; Cuevas v. Gulfport, 134 Miss. 644, 99 So. 503; Matthews v. State, 134 Miss. 807, 100 So. 18; Wells v. State, 135 Miss. 764, 100 So. 674; Jordon v. State, 135 Miss. 785, 100 So. 384; Butler v. State, 135 Miss. 885, 101 So. 193; Morton v. State, 136 Miss. 850, 101 So. 706; Deaton v. State, 137 Miss. 164, 102 So. 175; Borders v. State, 138 Miss. 788, 104 So. 145; Orick v. State, 140 Miss. 184, 105 So. 465; Harrell v. State, 140 Miss. 737, 106 So. 268; Spears v. State, 134 Miss. 569, 99 So. 361; Nicaise v. State, 141 Miss. 611, 106 So. 817; Brewer v. State, 142 Miss. 100, 107 So. 376; Cantelberry v. State, 142 Miss. 462, 107 So. 672; Lee v. City of Oxford, 134 Miss. 647, 99 So. 509.
A search warrant issued by a justice of the peace to search the person is void, and liquor found on person of accused on search pursuant to such warrant is inadmissible as evidence. Comby v. State, 141 Miss. 561, 106 So. 827; Duckworth v. Taylorsville, 142 Miss. 440, 107 So. 666; Cantelberry v. State, 142 Miss. 462, 107 So. 672; Robinson v. State, 143 Miss. 247, 108 So. 903.
W. M. Gwin, and D. M. Huff, justices of the peace, had no authority under the law to try appellant on a charge of carrying a concealed weapon, or to entertain any sort of affidavit against him, for that both of them are holding office in the state of Mississippi, and receive as pay fees in cases, in which a conviction is had, and are thus and thereby interested in a pecuniary way in a conviction of appellant, and that as such, under the ruling of the United States, in the celebrated Ohio case, Turner v. State, L.Ed. , a conviction in either of said courts would have been illegal and unlawful, and violative of the Constitution of the United States.
The court was manifestly in error in remanding appellant to jail without the benefit of bond, especially in view of the fact, assuming that an officer in Mississippi might arrest on a capias addressed to the officer of Louisiana, and assuming that the proceedings in the court of D. M. Huff were regular, even though constitutional, after a hearing on the petition of the writ of habeas corpus as each of the crimes alleged to have been committed, and a capias issued thereon by a proper authority of Louisiana called for bail in the sum of five hundred dollars in one case, and seven hundred fifty dollars in the other, and even though appellant who was at the time in Mississippi, the asylum state and though the demanding state, Louisiana, was seeking his recovery, that the demanding state had not asked for bond in excess of one thousand two hundred fifty dollars, yet the court arbitrarily, even though a bond had been fixed by the demanding state in such sum as they thought amply sufficient, absolutely and wholly declined to fix at said sum, but proceeded to remand him to jail without bail, and thus treated your appellant as a murderer, who had maliciously, wilfully and deliberately taken the life of a human being.
J. A. Lauderdale, for appellee.
The facts shows that appellant was held under and by virtue of four separate and distinct warrants. If appellant was held legally by any one of said warrants the decree of the chancellor must be sustained. The affidavit filed before W. M. Gwin, justice of peace, charging appellant with the commission of a misdemeanor and the warrant issued thereunder are good and valid.
Appellant contends that he was illegally held under and by virtue of this warrant; first, because the evidence upon which the affidavit was made was illegally secured, and, second, because the justice of the peace was disqualified to try the appellant upon said charge because of his alleged pecuniary interest in the outcome of the suit. These questions were questions to be determined on the trial of the case on its merits before the justice of the peace. A writ of habeas corpus is not the proper remedy. Assuming that the contentions of counsel are correct, these questions should have presented on the trial of the case on its merits. If in fact, the testimony offered by the state was inadmissible, it could have been excluded on objection by counsel for defendant. See Blowe v. State, 130 Miss. 112; State v. Morgan, 114 Miss. 639.
The defendant's only remedy was by trial before the justice of peace and then by appeal to the circuit court and then to the supreme court and he was not entitled to invoke the writ of habeas corpus. There is no contention made that the affidavits hereinbefore mentioned did not charge the commission of crimes. Neither is it contended that the justice of the peace did not have jurisdiction to try said causes. Giles v. The State, 36 Miss. 637; Grubbs v. The State, 79 Miss. 358; Smith v. The State, 79...
To continue reading
Request your trial