Harris v. Early County

22 S.E. 704, 96 Ga. 186
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedApril 29, 1895
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 22 S.E. 704 (Harris v. Early County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Harris v. Early County, 22 S.E. 704, 96 Ga. 186 (Ga. 1895).

Opinion

Atkinson, Justice.

Whatever considerations of public policy may have influenced the General Assembly in requiring subpoenas for non-resident witnesses in criminal cases, who are desired to testify on behalf of the State, to be signed by the solicitor-general of the circuit before they were issued by the clerk, it nevertheless was so enacted; and accordingly, section 3845 of the code provides that “no subpoena for a non-resident witness for the State shall be issued, unless the same shall be signed by the clerk of the court and the solicitor-general of the circuit.” The evident purpose of the General Assembly was to leave the selection of witnesses to be sworn on behalf of the State, and to be paid out of the county treasury, to the selection of that officer who by law was charged with representing the interests of the State in criminal prosecutions. In the case under consideration, the plaintiff in error resided without the limits of the county in which the criminal prosecution was pending; the clerk of the superior court issued an ordinary subpoena addressed to him, and upon that he attended the court. This subpoena being issued without having first been countersigned by the solicitor-general, was issued in direct contravention of the provision of the code now under [187]*187consideration. Any process which issues against the prohibition of a statute is void, and the person to whom it is directed is under no obligation to obey its mandate. This witness might have disregarded entirely this void process; but inasmuch as he saw proper to attend the court thereunder, he must be treated in law as a mere volunteer, and not as attending in obedience to the mandate of a lawful process. By the very terms of the act, he was not entitled to either his per diem or mileage allowance, and the judgment of the court disallowing his claim was correct, and is, accordingly, Affirmed.

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

Related

Dickerson v. Mangham
22 S.E.2d 88 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1942)
Monroe v. Anderson
109 S.E. 654 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1921)
Ivey v. State
62 S.E. 565 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 S.E. 704, 96 Ga. 186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-early-county-ga-1895.