From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ex Parte Slaughter

Supreme Court of Alabama
May 17, 1928
116 So. 684 (Ala. 1928)

Opinion

6 Div. 984.

March 29, 1928. Rehearing Denied May 17, 1928.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Hon. John Denson, Judge.

Nesbit Sadler, of Birmingham, for appellant.

The state fire marshal has the right to summon witnesses to appear before him and testify in relation to any pertinent matter. There is no necessity for a formal hearing in the examination of witnesses; no provision for an attorney for a witness to be present; no constitutional right is thus denied. Code 1923, § 951 et seq.; Hamilton v. Smith, 51 Ala. 66; Ætna L. I. Co. v. Milward, 118 Ky. 716, 82 S.W. 364, 68 L.R.A. 285, 4 Ann. Cas. 1092.

William S. Pritchard and John D. Higgins, both of Birmingham, for appellee.

Section 4052 of the Code is unconstitutional and void. Constitution 1901, §§ 6, 7, 8, 11. The privilege of a witness not to give self-incriminating evidence is not limited merely to criminal prosecutions, but can be invoked in any type of judicial proceedings, and this right extends to hearings before the fire marshal. 28 R. C. L. 425. Upon hearing on evidence given ore tenus, the respondents found Henderson was not guilty and discharged him. The conclusion of the trial judge should not be set aside. Halle v. Brooks, 209 Ala. 486, 96 So. 341; Pinckard v. Cassels, 195 Ala. 353, 70 So. 153; Code 1923, § 9498.


Common-law certiorari to review an order of the Honorable John Denson, one of the judges of the circuit court of Jefferson county, discharging a rule to show cause, issued under section 4052 of the Code, on the complaint of the state fire marshal, against Ernest Henderson.

The function of the writ of certiorari at common law extends to the question of jurisdiction of the inferior tribunal and the external validity and regularity of the proceedings, but not to its intrinsic correctness. Where the forms of law have been followed and jurisdiction appears, here the inquiry ends. Independent Pub. Co. v. Amer. Press Ass'n, 102 Ala. 475, 15 So. 947; Phillips et al. v. Holmes, 165 Ala. 250, 51 So. 625; Adams v. City of Troy, 1 Ala. App. 544, 56 So. 82; Dean v. State, 63 Ala. 153; Miller v. Jones, 80 Ala. 93; McCulley v. Cunningham, 96 Ala. 585, 11 So. 694; 5 R. C. L. 250, § 3. Ex parte Dickens, 162 Ala. 272, 50 So. 218.

The complaint seems to have been made in conformity to the statute which confers jurisdiction, and the matter was disposed of on the merits, and the proceedings appear in all things regular, with the result that the order discharging the rule must be affirmed. Phillips et al. v. Holmes, supra. Ex parte Dickens, supra.

Writ denied; affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SOMERVILLE and THOMAS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Ex Parte Slaughter

Supreme Court of Alabama
May 17, 1928
116 So. 684 (Ala. 1928)
Case details for

Ex Parte Slaughter

Case Details

Full title:Ex parte SLAUGHTER, State Fire Marshal

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: May 17, 1928

Citations

116 So. 684 (Ala. 1928)
116 So. 684

Citing Cases

Ex Parte Biddle

Certiorari at common law extends only to question of jurisdiction of inferior tribunal and external validity…

Worthington v. City Board of Education

It appears from the face of the return to the writ of certiorari that the municipal court had jurisdiction of…