Forrester v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Forrester v. State

93 So. 279, 18 Ala. App. 492, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 171

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 9, 1922

Docket6 Div. 10.

StatusPublished

This text of 93 So. 279 (Forrester v. State) 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

Forrester v. State, 93 So. 279, 18 Ala. App. 492, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 171 (Ala. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

Appellant filed petition, for writ of habeas corpus, before I-Ion. William E. Fort, judge of the Tenth judicial circuit, in which it is insisted that he is being illegally restrained of his liberty by virtue of void proceedings against him in the circuit court of Cleburne county, Ala.

The order of the judge below in denying the writ and in refusing to grant the prayer in the petition, and in remanding the petitioner to the custody of the penitentiary authorities, is correct in all things, and no error was committed in so doing. The petition, exhibits, and answer thereto affirmatively show that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought.

The judgment rendered herein is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

BRICKEN, P. J.

Appellant filed petition, for writ of habeas corpus, before I-Ion. William E. Fort, judge of the Tenth judicial circuit, in which it is insisted that he is being illegally restrained of his liberty by virtue of void proceedings against him in the circuit court of Cleburne county, Ala.

The order of the judge below in denying the writ and in refusing to grant the prayer in the petition, and in remanding the petitioner to the custody of the penitentiary authorities, is correct in all things, and no error was committed in so doing. The petition, exhibits, and answer thereto affirmatively show that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought.

The judgment rendered herein is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 So. 279, 18 Ala. App. 492, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/forrester-v-state-alactapp-1922.