Ex parte Eagan

18 Fla. 194
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJanuary 15, 1881
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 18 Fla. 194 (Ex parte Eagan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

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]*200murder 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]*201After 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:

C. W. Stephens being sworn on behalf of the petitioner says : I live in Madison, Madison county, Ela.; I am an attorney-at-law ; I know Dennis Eagan; I was in Madison on Tuesday the 8th Eebruary, 1881; I was with Mr. Eagan part of the morning of that day ; Mr. Eagan was acting as Notary Public in taking testimony in the case of Bisbee vs. Einley; Mr. S. Y. Einley and myself represented Mr. Einley in taking testimony; one witness had been examined and cross-examined, and another witness was just called to go on the direct examination when Mr. Eagan said we would not take any more testimony here; I think this occupied about three-quarters of an hour; Mr. Horatio Jenkins was representing the contestant, Mr. Bisbee; Mr. Eagan was recording the testimony, and I was also taking a copy of the testimony; there was firing of pistols in the far end of the room ; I presume caused him to get frightened and desist; I was sitting with my back towards the firing when I first heard it on the east side of the table [202]*202next to the door ; Mr. Einley was sitting on the same side of the table on my right; Mr. Eagan was sitting opposite me on the other side of the table with his face to the door, when we began taking testimony; 'Mr. Jenkins was sitting at the north end of the table with his face towards us ; the witness who had been on examination was a little to the left of Mr. Jenkins, about ea9t of the north end of the table; the remark made by Mr. Eagan, that he would take no further testimony, was after the shooting was over and I had gone down and returned to the court room; Mr. E. P. Paterson came in the room whilst we were taking testimony and sat down by me, and I did not notice when he got up and left me ; it was about fifteen or twenty minutes after he came in until the shooting occurred ; while sitting by me I think he was reading some testimony that was taken the day before on the Eagan plantation in the same case, or rather a copy of some testimony; I did not see the commencement of the shooting ; immediately after hearing the reports of the pistols in quick succession I jumped up and saw Howard E. James and Charles H. Savage and E. P. Paterson all together near the door of the court room; I saw Paterson as though he seemed to be pulling off from the two negroes, Savage and James; I left my seat and ran towards them as fast as I could ; by the time I got there Mr. Paterson had fallen and gotten up again; I had to look where I was going, as I was jumping from one bench to another to get to where they were standing, and made some noise going over benches ; Savage was standing about six or eight feet from the door in the court room ; I had heard distinctly three reports of a pistol before I got to them; when I was on the last bench, about five feet of Savage, who was in front of me, he leveled his pistol at me and said, “ don’t you come hereI said, “don’t you shoot me, sir,” and immediately jumped off the bench and went [203]*203to Mr.

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 Fla. 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-eagan-fla-1881.