Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

38 Ala. 237

Ex parte Coburn

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided January 15, 1862

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1862-01-15

Application by Thomas S. and.Edward Coburn for & mandamus to the probate judge of Downdes county, requiring him to allow them to. adduce evidence before him, on habeas corpus, showing.the illegality of their confinement by the sheriff of said. county, as hereinafter stated.

Relies on Ex parte Burnett · Tomlin v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1862-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently May 1974

3 state decisions

10186218701880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

R. W. WALKER, J.

¶1Where, on complaint to a justice of the peace, an order is made by him, requiring an individual to give security to keep the peace, and directing his imprisonment until such security is given; the probate judge has no authority, üpon habeas corpus or otherwise, to re-examine the case trptm- the facts, and discharge the prisoner. The only mode of revising-the decision of the justice upon the facts, is".by an appeal’, undei section 3351 of the Code, to the circuit court, which- can-try the case de novo, and either confirm the order of the magistrate? or' discharge the applicant. — Code, § 3354 ; Tomlin v. State, 19 Ala. 9. The return of the sheriff showed, that the .petitioners were¡held in custody under an order of a justice-of the peacé,*T'equiring'1hem do'-give security to keep the peace?' audits' this order "was not- open to-objection on any of the grounds-specified in section 3744 of the Code, the probate judge'-had no authority to inquire into its legality or justice. — Code, § 3741; Ex parte Burnett, 30 Ala. 461. Consequently; the probate judge was right, in- refusing to hear -evidence- touching the guilt or innocence of the petitioners, and properly dismissed'the petition.

¶2Motion refused.

Stone, J., not sitting;
/38/ala/237 · .json · Public domain