Magwood v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Magwood v. State

117 So. 159, 22 Ala. App. 482, 1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 160

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 22, 1928

Docket4 Div. 334.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 117 So. 159 (Magwood 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

Magwood v. State, 117 So. 159, 22 Ala. App. 482, 1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 160 (Ala. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

■SAMFORD, J.

All in one day, May 9, 1927, the deputy sheriff of Coffee county made affidavit before W. L. Parks, circuit judge, that he had probable cause for believing and did believe that defendant was guilty of violating the Prohibition Law (Code 1923, § 4615 et seq.). The judge issues his warrant, returnable instanter, the defendant is arrested and brought |into court, tried, convicted, and fined, three days later is sentenced to the chain gang in default of the fine and costs, and to an additional term of six months as a punishment. This ought to be swift enough to satisfy the most ardent advocate of “speedy justice.”

The circuit court, however, is without jurisdiction to try the defendant on such process as was here used, and the judgment entered was error.

In the absence of a statute authorizing it the circuit court can never proceed on such process. Ben Kyser v. State (3 Div. 582), ante, p. 431, 117 So. 157.

The judgment is reversed, and a judgment will here be entered discharging the defendant.

Reversed and rendered.

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

■SAMFORD, J.

All in one day, May 9, 1927, the deputy sheriff of Coffee county made affidavit before W. L. Parks, circuit judge, that he had probable cause for believing and did believe that defendant was guilty of violating the Prohibition Law (Code 1923, § 4615 et seq.). The judge issues his warrant, returnable instanter, the defendant is arrested and brought |into court, tried, convicted, and fined, three days later is sentenced to the chain gang in default of the fine and costs, and to an additional term of six months as a punishment. This ought to be swift enough to satisfy the most ardent advocate of “speedy justice.”

The circuit court, however, is without jurisdiction to try the defendant on such process as was here used, and the judgment entered was error.

In the absence of a statute authorizing it the circuit court can never proceed on such process. Ben Kyser v. State (3 Div. 582), ante, p. 431, 117 So. 157.

The judgment is reversed, and a judgment will here be entered discharging the defendant.

Reversed and rendered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 So. 159, 22 Ala. App. 482, 1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/magwood-v-state-alactapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack