Williamson v. State

• Decision Date: 25 April 1907
• Docket Number: 264.
• Citation: 57 S.E. 1079,1 Ga.App. 657
• Parties: WILLIAMSON v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

57 S.E. 1079

1 Ga.App. 657

WILLIAMSON v. STATE.

No. 264.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

April 25, 1907

Syllabus by the Court.

Where a person is arrested on a warrant charging him with bastardy and upon an investigation by a justice of the peace is required to give the bond provided for in Pen. Code 1895, § 1250, and, upon failure to give such bond is bound over to appear before a court of competent jurisdiction to answer to the charge of bastardy, there is no charge or case against the defendant until an accusation, indictment, or presentment is preferred.

Consequently a person so bound for his appearance cannot, as a matter of right, demand a trial or a discharge. An order entered on the minutes allowing such demand is a nullity, and it is not error to refuse at the succeeding term to grant an order discharging him.

Error from City Court of Swainsboro; Mitchell, Judge.

One Williamson was arrested for crime. The warrant against him was dismissed, and he assigned as error the order dismissing the warrant and a refusal to grant a discharge. Affirmed.

Saffold & Larsen, for plaintiff in error.

Henry R. Daniel, Sol., for the State.

RUSSELL J.

The plaintiff in error was arrested on a warrant issued by a justice of the peace charging him with the offense of bastardy. He gave bond for his appearance before the justice and thereafter, in accordance with the terms of the bond appeared, and a trial was had as required by law. Upon hearing the evidence the magistrate required of the defendant the bond required by law in such cases. This the defendant refused to give, and he was thereupon required to give bond to appear before the city court of Swainsboro on the fourth Monday in November, 1906, to answer to the charge of bastardy. The criminal docket of the court of Swainsboro had entered thereon a case of State v. H R. Williamson, bastardy. In pursuance of his bond Williamson appeared at the November term of that court and demanded a trial. The solicitor announced that no accusation had been prepared, and none would be. But Williamson insisted, as a matter of law, that he was entitled to a trial, or to make a demand for the same. The court allowed a demand for trial, and ordered the same entered upon the minutes of the court, which was done. Thereafter on December 15, 1906, the court passed the following order, and entered it upon the original warrant issued by the justice of the peace: "There being no indictment or accusation against the defendant, H. R. Williamson, upon motion of H. R. Daniel, solicitor of the city court of Swainsboro, in the county of Emanuel, state of Georgia, who represents the state in said county, it is ordered that the within warrant be, and the same is, hereby dismissed and annulled. [ Signed] Frank Mitchell, Judge City Court of Swainsboro." The case on the criminal docket of the court was stricken from the docket, and an entry made (but not dated): "Warrant dismissed." Before the January term, 1907, of that court (at which term the defendant would have been entitled to a trial under the demand previously granted), the defendant and his counsel were notified that the warrant had been dismissed, and that there was no case pending against Williamson, and that he need not appear. But at the January term both Williamson and his counsel appeared, and insisted that the court could not dismiss the warrant, and that the defendant was entitled either to a trial or a discharge, under his demand made at the November term. At both terms, November and January, the judge of the city court was present and juries were duly impaneled, qualified to try the defendant's case. The court did not pass upon the question at that term, but announced that the defendant could go, and he would hear from his attorneys and the solicitor, without prejudice. The formal application for discharge was filed during the January term, on February 2, 1907; and after that time, before the adjournment of the court on February 6, 1907, the court called the case. A formal order of discharge was presented, and the court refused to grant the same, upon the ground that prior to the term of the court at which the application for discharge was made the warrant against the defendant had been dismissed, the case stricken from the docket, and the defendant notified of the same before the said term of court. The defendant (now plaintiff in error) assigns error as to the order dismissing the warrant and the refusal to grant a discharge. He excepts to the order dismissing the warrant (1) because the court had no jurisdiction, the warrant having served its purpose when the justice of the peace entered judgment thereon requiring the defendant to give bond as required by law, and, upon his failure so to do, took his bond for his appearance to a court competent to try the case; (2) because in a case of bastardy the warrant is transmitted to a court competent to try the case, not for the purpose of transmitting the case, but by virtue of the...