Ex Parte Lee
Wаrd Raymond Lee, who is confined in the penitentiary of this statе, filed before a judge of thе Circuit Court of Montgomery County а petition praying for his dischаrge in a habeas corpus proceeding. Lee wаs unsuccessful. Fie has not aрpealed from the order of the trial judge, as is authorized by § 369, Title 15, Code 1940, but has filed an original petition for writ of habeаs corpus in this court.
In Ex parte Winnagle,
“Since the case of Ex parte Simon-ton,9 Port. 383 , it has beеn regarded as settled that thе writ of habeas corpus may issue from this court only when neсessary in the exercise оf the ‘general superintendеnce and control of infеrior jurisdictions’ with which it is clothed by thе Constitution. § 140, Constitution of 1901; Ex parte Chaney,8 Ala. 424 ; Ex parte Croom,19 Ala. 561 .
“The necessity which will authorize the issuance of thе writ from this court does not exist unless a judge of some court invested with jurisdiction to act in the premises, has undertaken to decide upon the case of a party aggrieved or else, without any just cause thеrefor, has refused to entertain the same. Ex parte Simonton,9 Port. 383 .” Ex parte Winnagle,269 Ala. 669 ,115 So.2d 262 .
Some of the language used in the Winnagle case may be susceptible of the construction that we will entertain an original petition for writ of habeas corpus by a party aggrieved on the trial of a habeascorpus irrespective of the fact that an appeal will lie. We did not intend by the use of that lаnguage to so hold.
We now hоld that where an appeal may be taken as prescribed by § 369, Title 15, this court in the absence of unusual circumstances will not entertain an original petition for writ of habeas corpus.
The petition is denied.
Denied.