Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

49 Ark. 143

Ex parte Brandon

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided November 15, 1886

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1886-11-15

M. T. Sanders, Judge. 1. Appellant was entitled to a trial by jury, and the proceedings of the city court, after refusing him a jury, were coram non jndice and void, and habeas corpus was the proper proceeding. 33 Ark., 450; 27 id., 467; 45 id., 158; 63 Wis., 285.- 2. Appellant was entitled to a trial by jury. Cite Mansf. Dig., secs. 2357, 814, 7g7, 800; Acts 1885, p. g2, sec. 4; Const. 1874, sec. y, art. 2; Dill. Mini.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1886-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently May 1961

13 state decisions

30188618901900191019201930194019501960decided

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 →

Smith, J.

¶1Brandon was charged in the mayor’s court of Helena with disorderly conduct; pleaded not guilty; demanded a jury trial, which was refused; and was then tried by the mayor, convicted and fined. Failing to pay the fine, he was taken into custody by the city marshal; whereupon he applied by petition to the Circuit Court for a writ of habeas corpus. But his prayer was denied, and he has appealed.

¶2The question that is sought to be presented is, whether a person charged with the violation of a city ordinance is entitled to a trial by jury in the police court of a city of the second-class ? But an application for habeas corpus cannot be made to perform the function of an appeal, or writ of error, in correcting errors and irregularites at the trial. To authorize the judge of the superior court to interfere and. discharge a convicted prisoner in this summary fashion, the sentence must be a nullity, or the court which imposed it must, have been without jurisdiction. Ex parte Watkins, 3 Peters, 193; ex parte Parks, 93 U. S., 18; ex parte Mason, 105 id., 696; ex parte Carll, 106 id., 521; ex parte Yarbrough, 110 id., 651; ex parte Fisk, 113 id., 713; ex parte Wilson, 114 id., 417; State v. Glenn, 54 Md., 572.

¶3Section 3570 of Mansfield’s Digest enacts, amongst other things, that it shall be the duty of the judge forthwith to remand the prisoner, if it shall appear that he is held in custody by virtue of the final judgment of any competent court of civil or criminal jurisdiction. And our previous decisions have conformed to the principle embodied in this statute. Jones, ex parte, 27 Ark., 349; Stow, ex parte, id., 354; Martin, ex parte, id., 467; Jackson, ex parte, 45 id., 158.

¶4The judgment exhibited with the petition shows a conviction of an offense, of which the mayor’s court had unquestioned jurisdiction. And if, in the progress of the trial, or in the proceedings preliminary to the trial, errors were committed, to the prejudice of the substantial rights of the prisoner, these errors must be brought for review before an appellate court in the regular way. Habeas corpus is not a proper proceeding to test the validity of a conviction where the prisoner has been denied a jury. The remedy was by appeal to the Circuit Court.

¶5Affirmed.

/49/ark/143 · .json · Public domain