Wright v. State
| Decision Date | 01 February 1912 |
| Citation | 57 So. 1023,3 Ala.App. 140 |
| Parties | WRIGHT v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Law Court, Pike County; T. L. Borum, Judge.
Eva Wright was convicted of crime, and appeals. Affirmed.
D. A Baker, for appellant.
R. C Brickell, Atty. Gen., and W. L. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
DE GRAFFENRIED, J.
Under the common law, as we received it from England, a person to whom a writ of habeas corpus was directed, and who refused to obey the writ, was liable in damages to the party aggrieved and was also guilty of a contempt of the court issuing the writ. Am. & Eng. Ency. Law, p. 129, note 6.
To add to the efficiency of the writ, the Legislature passed the act now forming section 7038 of the Code, which provides, among other things, that any person to whom a writ of habeas corpus is directed, and who refuses to receive the same, or neglects to obey and execute it according to the provisions of the chapter relating to the subject of habeas corpus, being chapter 227 of the Code of 1907, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
The prosecution in the present case was commenced by an affidavit made by W. C. Carroll, in which he states that "he has probable cause for believing and does believe that, in Pike county, within twelve months before making this affidavit, a writ of habeas corpus issued by E. C. Edmonson, judge of probate of Pike county, Ala., and directed to Eva alias Evie Wright and said Will Thomas, directing them to have the body of Henry and Robert Wright before said judge on a day named which writ was served on Eva alias Evie Wright and Will Thomas, and said Eva alias Evie Wright and Will Thomas neglected to obey and execute it according to its provisions." The affidavit was demurred to upon only two grounds, viz.: (1) That it did not charge the commission of a criminal offense, because it failed to show wherein the defendants neglected to obey said writ; and (2) because it charged no offense known to the law.
Section 7038 of the Code, under the provisions of which the above affidavit was made, does not require that, in an affidavit or indictment charging a violation of its provisions, it shall be stated that the defendant, without sufficient excuse, neglected to obey and execute the writ. If a person is prosecuted criminally for a violation of the provisions of said section, he may, as a defense thereto show by evidence that he had a sufficient excuse for so...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lowery v. State
...cases as follows: United States. — U. S. v. Freed (C. C.) 179 Fed. 236. Alabama. — Hyde v. State, 155 Ala. 133, 46 South. 489; Wright v. State, 3 Ala. App. 140, 57 South. 1023. Arkansas. — Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. State, 90 Ark. 343, 119 S. W. 288. California. — People v. Bartley, 12 ......
-
Posey v. State
... ... promulgated by the court of county commissioners. The ... foregoing is in line with the several rulings of this court ... in similar cases. Glenn v. City of Prattville, 14 ... Ala.App. 621, 71 So. 75; Bivins v. City of ... Montgomery, 13 Ala.App. 641, 69 So. 224; Wright v ... State, 3 Ala.App. 140, 57 So. 1023; Campbell v ... State, 4 Ala.App. 104, 58 So. 125; Jordan v ... State, 5 Ala.App. 229, 59 So. 710; Oliver v ... State, 16 Ala.App. 533, 79 So. 313; Curlee v ... State, 16 Ala.App. 62, 75 So. 268; Horn v ... State (4 Div. 605) 84 So. 883. The ... ...
-
Oliver v. State
... ... 752; Hicks v ... State, 75 So. 636 ... Section 2 of the act above referred to creates the crime and ... fixes the penalty for a violation. In drawing indictments ... under a statute, it is sufficient if the language of the ... statute is substantially followed. Wright v. State, ... 3 Ala.App. 140, 57 So. 1023; Campbell v. State, 4 ... Ala.App. 104, 58 So. 125; Jordan v. State, 5 ... Ala.App. 229, 59 So. 710; Gleason v. State, 6 ... Ala.App. 49, 60 So. 518; Sellers v. State, 7 ... Ala.App. 78, 61 So. 485; McLain v. State, 72 So ... 511; Porter v. State, 72 ... ...
-
Harris v. State
... ... the elements thereof and containing no exception in the ... clause defining the offense, need not negative matters which ... may be set up as a defense under other statutes or under ... provisos in the same statute. 1 Mayfield's Digest, p ... 447; paragraphs 33 and 34; Wright v. State, 3 ... Ala.App. 140, 57 So. 1023; Miller v. State, 16 ... Ala.App. 534, 79 So. 314; Bryan v. State, 18 ... Ala.App. 199, 89 So. 894; Pendley v. State, 22 ... Ala.App. 462, 116 So. 809 ... [27 So.2d 798.] ... The ... indictment is not void but is sufficient to support ... ...