Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

135 Ala. 71

Farr v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided November 15, 1902

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1902-11-15

Heard before the Hon. Ed. Loach. The proceedings in this case were had upon a petition filed by the appellant, John Parr, for habeas corpus, addressed to the judge of probate of Geneva county asking for his discharge from custody. The facts of the case upon which the petitioner asks for his discharge are sufficiently stated in the opinion. Upon the hearing of all the evidence the court denied the petition, and remanded the petitionar to the custody of the sheriff.

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently March 1929

3 state decisions

Relies on Ex parte Stearnes · Ex parte Driver

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1902-11-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

SHAKPE, J.

¶1Upon a charge of murder and pursuant to a preliminary examination had before a justice of the peace of Geneva county, petitioner was, on August 11th, 1902, committed to the custody of the sheriff, who now holds him in jail under a mittimus bearing the date mentioned and commanding that the petitioner be detained until legally discharged. The term for holding the circuit court of that county which followed next after the commitment, was fixed by law to begin on the 13th day of October, 1902. The testimony taken on the trial of this case, as set out in the bill of exceptions, is to effect that on the last named day “the sheriff or deputy sheriff called court and made public announcement of the opening of court, that presiding Judge Hubbard was present and immediately after taking his seat in the court room, announced that no term of the court would be held;” that no order of any character was made and no entry of any organization of the court was made on the court records, and no jury, grand or petit, was organ*73ized. On these facts the petitioner bases his application to he released.

¶2In Ex parte Stearnes, 104 Ala. 93, it was held that where one is committed to jail upon preliminary examination to answer for a criminal offense and while he is in custody a regular term of the circuit court is held and adjourned without the finding of an indictment against the prisoner and without making any order continuing the cause for investigation, the prisoner is entitled to be discharged. This case differs from that of Ex parte Stearnes in that here there was no court to take action on the petitioner’s case either by way of investigaton of the charge or of continuing the matter for investigation. The testimony above referred to shows,' not that the court was held and afterwards adjourned, but that it ivas never convened. The lapse of a term without convention of the court.does not work a discontinuance of a criminal prosecution.—Ex parte Driver, 51 Ala. 41. The principle applies to a prosecution pending as this was to await the action of the grand jury in the circuit court.

¶3The probate judge did not err in remanding the prisoner, and his judgment will be affirmed.

/135/ala/71 · .json · Public domain