Ex parte Grayson

61 So. 305, 104 Miss. 242
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 15, 1913
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 61 So. 305 (Ex parte Grayson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ex parte Grayson, 61 So. 305, 104 Miss. 242 (Mich. 1913).

Opinion

Reed, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from the action of the circuit judge' in denying the habeas corpus petition of appellant for his discharge from custody.

The agreed statement of facts shows that Bill Grayson was convicted in the justice of the peace court for disturbing a family. He appealed to the circuit court. His appeal was dismissed, with a writ of procedendo to the justice of the peace. He was taken in custody and put in jail by the sheriff. Afterwards the sheriff accepted a note signed by several parties as security for the fine and costs assessed against Bill Grayson and released him from prison. The note was not paid, and Grayson was again-imprisoned. He claims upon this appeal that the giving of the note was a complete satisfaction of the law for' the offense.

The sheriff is the jailer of the county. It is his duty to-receive and keep any person committed to prison by a justice of the peace according to the order of commitment. [247]*247He had no authority to take the note as security for the payment of the fine and costs, and release Grayson. He should not have permitted the prisoner to escape or go at large. He clearly violated the plain provisions of the law in taking the note and allowing Grayson to go at large. Grayson has not satisfied the law by the payment of the fine and costs. His situation, after his illegal release from imprisonment by the sheriff, was that of an escaped convict. Therefore it was proper to rearrest him and again commit him to prison until he had satisfied the law by the payment of the fine and costs assessed against him.

The circuit judge did not err in denying the petition.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Cummings v. City of Huntsville
108 So. 241 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
61 So. 305, 104 Miss. 242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-grayson-miss-1913.