J. E. WILLIAMS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case involves a habeas corpus petition challenging the legality of an arrest for passing worthless checks. The court affirmed the denial of the petition, finding that the warrant, while potentially imperfect, sufficiently charged an offense under Florida law and that the lower court had jurisdiction.
Yes, the warrant sufficiently charges an offense under the relevant statute, and the court issuing the warrant had jurisdiction over the person and the power to issue it, thus the custody is not unlawful.
“While the warrant issued in this case may be subject to objections of inaccuracies and imperfections in pleading, although it does conform to the form prescribed by Sec. 7 of Chapter 8401, supra, it does not wholly fail to charge an offense under the law of this State as defined by See. 7922, supra”
This quote establishes the court's reasoning that the warrant, despite potential flaws, was sufficient to charge an offense.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error was arrested based on a warrant for passing worthless checks, alleging insufficient funds to cover the check. He sought dischar…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Lawful Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
Ellis, J.
The plaintiff in error was arrested and is in custody as a prisoner of the constable of the Fifth Judicial District of Suwannee County who holds him by reason of a warrant issued by the justice of the peace of the fifth district charging the accused with the offense of “passing worthless checks” to another not having sufficient funds on deposit with the drawee named in the check to insure the payment of same within a reasonable time after negotiation.
The accused applied for his discharge upon writ of habeas corpus upon return being made by the constable. The attorney for the accused moved for his discharge upon several grounds. The motion was denied and the accused was remanded to the custody of the constable. The case is here on writ of error. The offense was alleged to have been committed in January, 1927.
In 1921, by Chapter 8401, the drawing or uttering by one person to another of any check “without there being at the time thereof sufficient funds on deposit or to his credit with the drawee named therein to insure the payment of same upon presentation within a reasonable time after negotiation” was made a misdemeanor. See Sec. 7922 Comp. Gen. Laws of Florida, 1927.
That statute is not the worthless check statute many times considered by this court, Chap. 5468 Acts 1905, Chap. 6871 Acts 1915 and Chap. 7263 Acts 1917. While the warrant issued in this case may be subject to objections of inaccuracies and imperfections in pleading, although it does conform to the form prescribed by Sec. 7 of Chapter 8401, supra, it does not wholly fail to charge an offense under the law of this State as defined by See. 7922, supra* The court issuing the warrant had jurisdiction of the person and the power to issue the warrant. The custody of the accused does not appear to be unlawful. See Porter v. Porter, 60 Fla. 407, 53 So. R. 546; Porter v. State, 62 Fla. 79, 56 So. R. 405.
The judgment remanding the accused is affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Brown, J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. The State of Fla. ex rel. W. L. Fox, 99 Fla. 711 (Fla. 1930)…f a public appointee or State officer the information would not be amenable to the criticism that it wholly failed to charge an office because it alleged the Inspector to be a public appointee. See Sec. 8368, Comp. Gen. Laws 1927; Williams v. State, 97 Fla. 401, 121 So. R. 462; In re Robinson, 73 Fla. 1068, 75 So. R. 604. Where the indictment or information charges an offense substantially in the language of the statute it is not the subject for an attack on habeas corpus, although there may be inaccuraci…
-
State v. Hickman, 189 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…case, to hold that the statute of limitations was not tolled •where the defendant failed to challenge the sufficiency of the warrant prior to the filing of the information(Emphasis supplied). The Supreme Court of Florida in Williams v. State, 1929, 97 Fla. 401, 121 So. 462, held that, where a Justice of the Peace has jurisdiction of the person accused and the subject matter of the charge (worthless check), and has the power to issue a warrant therefor, the person arrested thereunder has no right to be dis…
-
Roberts v. Dean, 133 Fla. 47 (Fla. 1938)…. Section 1 applies to the case where a maker draws a worthless check, not having sufficient funds on deposit in the drawee bank. The party committing the crime contemplated by this section is the drawer or maker of the check. See Williams v. State, 97 Fla. 401, 121 So. 462, where it was held in habeas corpus-proceedings that a warrant substantially in the form advocated by Section 7, Chapter 8401, Acts of 1921, did not wholly fail to charge a crime under Section 1 of that Chapter (7922 C. G. L.). It' is u…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Porter v. Porter, 60 Fla. 407 (Fla. 1910)
- Cannon Porter v. State, 62 Fla. 79 (Fla. 1911)