Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1885-12-05
THE FULLER CASE,
Judge Douglass Denies the Application
for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

In the matter of the petition for suit
OF habeas corpus for A. J. Fuller, who re-
Gently beat his landlady out of $40 by
means OF forged check, Judge Douglass
yesterday decided as follows:
- WIT OF habeas corpus. in
ruIcn it is represented that A. J. Fuller,
the petitioner, was, ON the 4th day of No.
vember last, convicted on two indictments
in this Court. It is further sst forth in
said petition that since said verdicts and
sentences he had discovered that under
the rulings of the Court in the Watson
and Welsh case, quoting the indictment,
petitioner had been improperly convicted,
and should be discharged from the peni-
Ientialy or tried upon new and different
indictments. The indictments in the first
and two last cases are for totally different
oHenses, and not, as assumed, upon the
same section of the code. The
first was for an attempt to obtain money
upon genuine or pretended and un-
signed or incomplete bond of an existing
or fictitious company, with coupons at
tached, which was quashed on the ground
that even if genuine in form, it wes not
one of the interdicted types described in
the statutes, 5497 and 5495; that it did not
circulate as currency" The Indictment
was fatally defective in other particulars.
1t failed to aver that, as required, the
paper circulated as currency, or that the
bond in question was issued by an exist
ing or fictitious company or corporation.
l need not say what would have been
the judgment of the Court upon
motion to quash the indictments
against petitioner. The contents oi
the indictments against petitioner
we're unknown to the Court, nor was this
necessary, as petitioner pleaded guilty to
both bills Of Indictment. 1t is clear that
petitioner could not have been-for dil-
ferent reasons than thoze which influenced
the Court in quashipg the Indictment in
the other case convicted on either indict
ment against him under sections 5497 O,
549S. The Court was not informed upon
what section of the code these indictments
were intended to be based. II, as claimed
by the petitioner, upon the above sec
| tioDs, the Court on motion would not
have hesitated to quash them, or tc
have sustained demurrer, or have arrest
| ed the judgment. But if upon sections
| 4955 or 5496, then the question woulc
| have been very different, and l do no
| now say what would have been the actor
| OF the Court on motion to quash. Upor
| the theory that the indictments were de
fective as to form or substance, should the
petitioner, after failing to avail himself by
any of the forms Of procedure, and aftel
voluntarily admitting his guilt as charged
by plea of guilty, accepting sentence o
three years in each case, be permit
ted, UPON a doubtful technicaity, to recal
his solemn admissions and invite tn.
State to another conflict. 1t is
we'll settled principle that if tn,
indictment is defective and insult
| ficiept, containing no valid chara,
OF an offense, the plea of guilty con
fesses none. But if The indictment ii
| good, setting out in due form an offensi
known to the law, the Court, on receiviD,
the plea of guilty, may proceed thereon t.
pronounce judgment. Was and is tn,
petitioner guilty? He says he is, In
claims if an Indictment against anothe
party, in form and substance entirel,
varient from those on which he was con
victed was quashed. he also should bs dis
charged. The facts in the cases are en-
tirely different. The court Cannet aban
don the landmarks of the law in thi
behalf, nor indulge sentiment, and i
therefore constrained to deny the sppli
i cation.