Ex Parte Olive

Alabama Court of Appeals

Ex Parte Olive

85 So. 37, 17 Ala. App. 329, 1920 Ala. App. LEXIS 21

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 16, 1920

Docket6 Div. 666.

StatusPublished

This text of 85 So. 37 (Ex Parte Olive) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ex Parte Olive, 85 So. 37, 17 Ala. App. 329, 1920 Ala. App. LEXIS 21 (Ala. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

MERRITT, J.

The petitioner, Olive, on the 27th day of August, 1919, shot the deceased, Bunk Walker, with 'a pistol, killing him.

A preliminary trial was had in the inferior .court of Bessemer on September 13, 1919, at which time the court ordered that the defendant be committed to jail and there held to await the action of the grand jury by which he was indicted. On September 17, 1919, the petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed in the Bessemer division of the circuit court of Jefferson county, and on the .same date an order was issued to the sheriff to bring the petitioner before the court on September 23, 1919, and on the • last-named date the court, after hearing the testimony in the case, disallowed bail to Olive, and ordered that he be remanded to jail without bail. From this order petitioner appeals.

AVe have carefully considered the evidence in this, case, and find that the tendencies of' the evidence submitted by the prosecutor and petitioner on the application for bail were conflicting, and, this being so, we cannot better say than was said in a like case by Judge Pelham in the case of Ex parte Mancill, 15 Ala. App. 421, 73 South. 750, when he said:

“Having the proper regard for the weight which should, in such case, be accorded by the *330 revising court to the judgment of the primary tribunal, when the same is presented for review on appeal, * * * . it cannot be held that the record, presents a case where it is clear that the judge * * * was in error in denying bail. We refrain from a discussion of the evidence, in view of the fact that the case will stand for trial.”

See Ex parte Sloane, 95 Ala. 22, 11 South. 14, Ex parte McAnally, 53 Ala. 495, 25 Am. Rep. 646 .

The result is that the order denying hail must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

MERRITT, J.

The petitioner, Olive, on the 27th day of August, 1919, shot the deceased, Bunk Walker, with 'a pistol, killing him.

A preliminary trial was had in the inferior .court of Bessemer on September 13, 1919, at which time the court ordered that the defendant be committed to jail and there held to await the action of the grand jury by which he was indicted. On September 17, 1919, the petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed in the Bessemer division of the circuit court of Jefferson county, and on the .same date an order was issued to the sheriff to bring the petitioner before the court on September 23, 1919, and on the • last-named date the court, after hearing the testimony in the case, disallowed bail to Olive, and ordered that he be remanded to jail without bail. From this order petitioner appeals.

AVe have carefully considered the evidence in this, case, and find that the tendencies of' the evidence submitted by the prosecutor and petitioner on the application for bail were conflicting, and, this being so, we cannot better say than was said in a like case by Judge Pelham in the case of Ex parte Mancill, 15 Ala. App. 421, 73 South. 750, when he said:

“Having the proper regard for the weight which should, in such case, be accorded by the *330 revising court to the judgment of the primary tribunal, when the same is presented for review on appeal, * * * . it cannot be held that the record, presents a case where it is clear that the judge * * * was in error in denying bail. We refrain from a discussion of the evidence, in view of the fact that the case will stand for trial.”

See Ex parte Sloane, 95 Ala. 22, 11 South. 14, Ex parte McAnally, 53 Ala. 495, 25 Am. Rep. 646 .

The result is that the order denying hail must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 So. 37, 17 Ala. App. 329, 1920 Ala. App. LEXIS 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-olive-alactapp-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack