Spears v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Spears v. State

106 So. 72, 21 Ala. App. 129, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 270

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 11, 1925

Docket4 Div. 69.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 106 So. 72 (Spears 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

Spears v. State, 106 So. 72, 21 Ala. App. 129, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 270 (Ala. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

This appellant, J. E. Spears, was arrested upon process issued from the juvenile court of Montgomery county, and was in the custody of the sheriff of Geneva county under this process, at the time he filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus before lion. D. G. Roach as judge of probate of said county. The writ was granted and the hearing had upon said petition, after.which the judge of probate denied the prayer in the petition and remanded petitioner to the custody of the sheriff of Geneva county, Ala. From the order or decree rendered, the petitioner appealed to this court. (The proceedings were had prior to the going into effect of the 1923 Code.)

We are of the opinion that, so far as this particular proceeding (habeas corpus) is concerned, the principal questions involved have already been decided by this court adversely to the insistences of appellant. Higginbotham v. State, 20 Ala. App. 476, 103 So. 71; Shoemake v. State, 17 Ala. App. 461, 86 So. 151, and cases cited.

The principal question insisted upon is whether or not, under the facts, the juvenile court of Montgomery had jurisdiction in the premises. As stated, this question has been decided in the case of Higginbotham, supra.

The facts upon final hearing of this case, as indicated by these proceedings, may be materially different from the facts stated in the opinion in the Higginbotham Case. We shall not, of course, pass upon the merits of the respective insistences which necessarily will arise upon the trial before the juvenile court of Montgomery.

It is evident that the assumption of jurisdiction in these proceedings by the juvenile court of Montgomery was predicated upon section 6 of Act 1915, p. 560. This section, pertinent to the present inquiry, reads:

“Any offense under this act shall be held to have been committed in any county in which such wife, child, or children, may be at the time such complaint is made.”

It is conceded,, by able counsel for appellant, if the above-quoted section is valid, the said court in Montgomery properly assumed jurisdiction of the case. As stated in the eases, supra, this point of decision has been definitely determined.

Affirmed.

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

BRICKEN, P. J.

This appellant, J. E. Spears, was arrested upon process issued from the juvenile court of Montgomery county, and was in the custody of the sheriff of Geneva county under this process, at the time he filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus before lion. D. G. Roach as judge of probate of said county. The writ was granted and the hearing had upon said petition, after.which the judge of probate denied the prayer in the petition and remanded petitioner to the custody of the sheriff of Geneva county, Ala. From the order or decree rendered, the petitioner appealed to this court. (The proceedings were had prior to the going into effect of the 1923 Code.)

We are of the opinion that, so far as this particular proceeding (habeas corpus) is concerned, the principal questions involved have already been decided by this court adversely to the insistences of appellant. Higginbotham v. State, 20 Ala. App. 476, 103 So. 71; Shoemake v. State, 17 Ala. App. 461, 86 So. 151, and cases cited.

The principal question insisted upon is whether or not, under the facts, the juvenile court of Montgomery had jurisdiction in the premises. As stated, this question has been decided in the case of Higginbotham, supra.

The facts upon final hearing of this case, as indicated by these proceedings, may be materially different from the facts stated in the opinion in the Higginbotham Case. We shall not, of course, pass upon the merits of the respective insistences which necessarily will arise upon the trial before the juvenile court of Montgomery.

It is evident that the assumption of jurisdiction in these proceedings by the juvenile court of Montgomery was predicated upon section 6 of Act 1915, p. 560. This section, pertinent to the present inquiry, reads:

“Any offense under this act shall be held to have been committed in any county in which such wife, child, or children, may be at the time such complaint is made.”

It is conceded,, by able counsel for appellant, if the above-quoted section is valid, the said court in Montgomery properly assumed jurisdiction of the case. As stated in the eases, supra, this point of decision has been definitely determined.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 So. 72, 21 Ala. App. 129, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spears-v-state-alactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack