Ex parte Eagan

18 Fla. 194
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided January 15, 1881·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Mr. Justice Westcott

delivered the opinion of the court.

The petition in this case discloses that the petitioner has been arrested under a warrant by a Justice of the Peace after being, charged upon affidavit with feloniously, aiding and abetting the murder of Prank Paterson. No preliminary examination by the magistrate issuing the warrant followed its issuance. The petitioner here seeks an examination and proper order at the hands of this court.

The first question which it is suggested arises concerns the jurisdiction and power of the court. We have examined this question. We have no doubt of our power, under the statute of this State, to hear the evidence, and to commit, admit to bail or to discharge, as' the facts may justify. In a case of this character, however, the exercise of this power is discretionary. The general rule, we think, would require us to commit the petitioner to the custody. of the sheriff of this court, with directions that he be taken before the magistrate for the purpose of investigating the charge. Ex-parte Krans, 1 Barn. & Cress., 258. This rule, however, is subject to the exception that the court may, in its discretion ’and for good cause shown, have the examination itself. It is suggested by petitioner that the petition here discloses good cause, in that it is alleged that he has reason to believe, and does believe, that he cannot get a fair examination, or secure justice, before the said Justice of- the Peace in Madison county, and also because Charles Savage and H. James, tw'o important witnesses of petitioner, are now. confined in jail in Leon county, having been removed here for safe-keeping under the charge of the [200] murder which it is alleged petitioner is charged w-ith aiding and abetting.

We cannot, in view of the results which must follow in .the matter of the exercise of their jurisdiction by magistrates, establish the rule that upon the pimple affidavit by a party arrested of reason to believe, and actual belief, that he will not get justice before the magistrate, we will arrest the exercise of his constitutional power and functions. To do so would be to establish a precedent which would practically destroy his power as a committing magistrate. The party should at least show 'by affidavit or otherwise some good reason for his belief, some good cause for this court; contrary to its general rule, to supersede the jurisdiction of this officer, and assume to ourselves 'functions which, under the Constitution arid the general legislative policy of the State, belong to another. Nor do we think the fact alleged as to the two witnesses sufficient. Under proper process of law, their testimony, if admissible, may be had before a proper magistrate. Again, from the nature of .this case it is more than probable that persons, other than those charged with the crime, witnessed whatever occurred, and if this be true there must be witnesses for the State, resident in Madison county, to be brought here. We cannot see from the pleadings before the court that there is any greater reason why the two witnesses for the petitioner should not be carried to Madison county rather than the witnesses for the State should be brought here. We think this is a matter to be controlled to a great extent by the officers representing the State in this cause, and their views would very properly influence our action to a considerable degree.

Upon the present pleadings we must remand the case to the magistrate for investigation.

[201] After the foregoing opinion was delivered, Mr. John E. "White,- State Attorney, and the Attorney-General,' seeing that great expense would be saved to the State by having the examination before the Supreme Court, determined for-this reason to consent to its proceeding with the case, and the Attorney-General so announced in open court, and the court thereupon decided to hear the case ; and by consent of counsel for the State and the petitioner an order was entered authorizing John M. Beggs, Clerk of the Circuit Court for Madison county, to take the testimony of certain witnesses residing in that county, and report the same to this court.

The following testimony was taken by Mr. Beggs in Madison county; State Attorney John E. White, representing the State, and Mr. P. W. White, representing the petitioner, being present:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ex parte Eagan, 18 Fla. 194 (Fla. 1881).

18 Fla. 194 (Ex parte Eagan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Mooney
73 P.2d 554 (California Supreme Court, 1937)
State Ex Rel. Price v. Stone
175 So. 229 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1937)
McLeod v. Chase
116 So. 858 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1928)
Ex parte Hatcher
98 So. 72 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1923)
Benjamin v. State
25 Fla. 675 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1889)
McClellan v. Solomon
23 Fla. 437 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1887)
Ex-Parte Wells
21 Fla. 280 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1885)