In Re Heffner

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

In Re Heffner

1919 OK CR 218, 182 P. 88, 16 Okla. Crim. 691, 1919 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 193

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJuly 12, 1919

DocketNo. A-3584.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1919 OK CR 218 (In Re Heffner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Heffner, 1919 OK CR 218, 182 P. 88, 16 Okla. Crim. 691, 1919 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 193 (Okla. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Application of Roy E. Heffner for writ of prohibition to prevent the county court of Nowata county from entertaining jurisdiction of an appeal taken by petitioner from a judgment of the municipal court of the city of Nowata, wherein the petitioner was fined $50 and costs, for a violation of Ordinance No. 238 of said city, which is an ordinance prohibiting, among other things, the operation of moving picture theaters on Sunday, and to prohibit said municipal court from enforcing the payment of said fine.

It is alleged that for various reasons, specifically stated, said ordinance is illegal and void, that the judgment of said municipal court is a nullity, and said court had no jurisdiction to try petitioner, and that said county court has no jurisdiction in said cause. *

We are inclined to think that, to test the validity of said ordinance, petitioner should have refused to pay the fine assessed against him, *692 and, if committed for refusing to pay the same, he could then apply for writ of habeas corpus. Having elected to take an appeal from the judgment of said municipal court, we are of the opinion that he is not entitled to the relief prayed for. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the application for writ of prohibition be denied.

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

PER CURIAM.

Application of Roy E. Heffner for writ of prohibition to prevent the county court of Nowata county from entertaining jurisdiction of an appeal taken by petitioner from a judgment of the municipal court of the city of Nowata, wherein the petitioner was fined $50 and costs, for a violation of Ordinance No. 238 of said city, which is an ordinance prohibiting, among other things, the operation of moving picture theaters on Sunday, and to prohibit said municipal court from enforcing the payment of said fine.

It is alleged that for various reasons, specifically stated, said ordinance is illegal and void, that the judgment of said municipal court is a nullity, and said court had no jurisdiction to try petitioner, and that said county court has no jurisdiction in said cause. *

We are inclined to think that, to test the validity of said ordinance, petitioner should have refused to pay the fine assessed against him, *692 and, if committed for refusing to pay the same, he could then apply for writ of habeas corpus. Having elected to take an appeal from the judgment of said municipal court, we are of the opinion that he is not entitled to the relief prayed for. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the application for writ of prohibition be denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1919 OK CR 218, 182 P. 88, 16 Okla. Crim. 691, 1919 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-heffner-oklacrimapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack