*1 dе failure reference to covert be a rather it would testify, and
fendant conclude otherwise. construction
strained So.2d State, Broadway 257 Ala. State, Ala. 701; Washington v. 704.
65 So.2d Appeals is the Court judgment of remanded. cause is
reversed and remanded.
Reversed LAWSON,
LIVINGSTON, J., and C. STAKELY, JJ., concur.
.SIMPSON
MAYFIELD, J., dissents.
MAYFIELD, (dissenting). Justice State for the officer prosecuting The chief doing indirection prohibited from directly. doing he is barred that the “de- the solicitor
'The statement effectively no evidence” offered fense has attention and focused
(cid:127)directed had defendant fact jury privilege constitutional his exercised express- This incrimination. self .against this reason For statute.
ly our forbidden respectfully dissent. must
I So.2d
May PIKE AND TELEPHONE BELL
SOUTHERN COMPANY. TELEGRAPH Div. 470.
Supreme of Alabama. Court 24, 1955.
March May 19,
Rehearing 1955. Denied Rehearing Denied June
Further
Gibson, Gibson, Birmingham, Hewitt & appellant. *2 Gadsden, Copeland, Copeland & H. Jas. Willis, Birmingham, amici curiae. MAYFIELD, Justice. appears
A statement of case dissenting opinion. primary whether here consideration is or not appellee Telephone Company justi- removing appellant’s telephone. fied appellee’s justification asserted of this act was that had received notification Connor, “Bull” Eugene Commissioner Safety City Birming- of Public ham, that this used for “illegal purposes”. clear that
It is
Com
pany,
any
public utility,
like
Boykin,',
monopoly,
duty
.lis
has
to serve
granted
A.
Smith and
W.
Edw.
John
impartially,
Simpson,
Ga.,
Lange,
general
and without
Atlanta,
!the
Jr.,
¡arbitrary
This
Somerville,
discrimination.
Birmingham,
&
Robinson
every
individual who-
service extends
appellee.
if
be discontinued
that service could
rules of the
the reasonable
complies with
it was
agency
law enforcement
advised
is entitled to
The subscriber
Company.
used,
used,
facilities,
in violation
will be
equal
under
equal
provision
Tel.,
Speaking of
this tariff
C.J.S., Tel. &
law.
equal
conditions.
*3
83; City
Attor-
Television,
p.
the
the United States
letter of
Radio &
§
Telephone
ney, the
Bell
court said:
Southern
&
Birmingham v.
Co., 234
of Police before would mere belief that they may be or are telephone service and withdrew the illegitimate tiff used for an end;
6a more is Western ter of the where proach, nor because gaged Tel. L.R.A. supra. Cаs. 203.] Ind. Cal.App.2d Co., in immoral they 495); nor because [Godwin [*] required (People v. Union applicant applied for. Godwin * have N.C. ** [*] Am.St.Rep. Tel. Co. v. 120 P.2d v. Carolina no connection [*] 48 S.E. person the charac- 946, supra; [*] Ferguson, above re- pursuits, Brophy, &Tel. 1 Ann. case, with [*] en- ty pany to withhold or terminated or may nor the Police authority regulate service, company. —rests “Neither “Whether or no service should [******] must" made delegate with the applications That the Police Commissioner statute to discontinued require a.telephone Department power public utility, one or avoid —as discontinue pass upon or is a well as -telephone given any decision com- du- True, police commissioner other. free “Neither any ju- Department department has consult with the Police nor the agen- the matter enforcement over authority risdiction or *5 cy, may guided by in its discontinuing or restor- be action furnishing, public, nor the advice received. But whether the telephone justified or am action is warranted must be way, so far as I any other in disap- telephone company approval by determined the or aware; or its his ” ** * presented. the facts regard meaningless proval that are in Y.S.2d was tioner peals, the criminal the titude is The [*] rangement or insofar as cerned; ever, forced, partment the trial court so affirmed, utterly [*] The court said police was, petition upon appellate 210. On however *» activities. respect holding of as, they possess no the commissioner may and the without any fact, using his for division appeal to the Court much the views understanding than by N.Y. example, legal effect as to direct a telephone indirection finding that App.Div. a part: modified the stranger; appellate power what- 71 N.E.2d more telephone for company, a between 568, 56 N. the is the de- be en- dismissal power division each con- order ar- at- peti- Ap- taken that the courts petitioners’ telephones. lowed in collected quire no further comment. N.Y.S. Cigarette & Automatic New York are Co., Sup., cases followed Company had refused Shillitani foregoing cases convinced that supporting a Company was ordered Upon contrary by the Whyte Telephone 73 N.Y.S.2d v. wherein the its department. of several Valentine, supra, dissenting courts of factual view; nevertheless, is sound and the rule contrary New York service on Co., 184 Music jurisdictions situation, respondent opinion Alabama. both We are aware enunciated view and in Misc. Co., Inc., to reinstall the Telephone cases, should was fol are and re the in Tele have Dees; ably The the we ins justifies con- even weaker case is than record stant the cаses “Since petitioner engaged in was we have heretofore elusion that which reviewed. A holding 986 of the would contrary particularly of section violative dis conduct Law, we consider the turbing questions that he failed when follows Penal * * legal Compa left unanswered a clear are which establish plea plea. does not the circum- This even sought. ny’s allege Under the relief telephone was, case, appellant’s fact, was war- there no of this stances in manner which justify com- used would compelling the rant allegation merely is peti- The removal. its service to reinstate Eugene appellee received notice from tioner. “illegal” Connor, of Public use of “Bull” Commissioner husband, stranger. thereby appellant, to remove her total Safety, and ordered aught plea, Commis- From that was in the telephone. alleged lеtter from except for Connor, company claims Commis- conclusion of the sioner sioner, merely type no immunity, “illegal” any states use them with clothes “illegal any made one. is purposes.” alleged notice have received been Company was couched in the letter to Attached to the terms which in- a direct Com- a list order from the from the Commissioner missioner is Safety. Louis Pike of Public concerning one What cluded remarks authority source of appellant. Mr. Connor’s to issue the husband of —presumably such an Pike a well-known order? We none. that Louis “is know of And was stated city.” we hold operator As was stat- that none exists. lottery in the cases, questionable foregoing ined view, If we took a contrary it would subscriber character naturally follow flow and Company, which holds justification for acting would be monopoly, discontinue the the notiсe of over-zealous law enforce- applica- Obviously, principle doubly who, evidence, ment official and on the character and occu- ble where both suspicion, impressed mere with the bad person assailed is someone pation of the occupation character particular of a than the subscriber. subscriber. The letter “illegal” plea up are not inter Commissioner Connor set “Criminal” in the changeable argued by While it defense. It is the Company’s terms. *6 appellee burden to that the “illegal” that the use show referred use made of did, bookmaking operations, fact, justify such to concerned its re- appear moval. in the notice received does Telephone Company. Stripped to a depredations These of subscriber’s legal essentials, Connor’s let bare Commissioner to a cоnstitute de- allegations against makes two ter Louis process guaranteed by nial due of the Con- First, “operates negro that he a Pike. beer gratuitous stitution of art. The 6.§ joint”. of Regardless whether such activi arbitrary police action of a official is laudable, ty be it is not criminal or even- justification an abridgement of this Secondly, operates “illegal”. that Pike the1 | right. To Compa- hold Lottery House and has at least Louis Joe ny in discontinuing service by pending the various cases courts. three police require “order” of a official would a criminal case “pendency” cannot judicial recognition power of a punitive predicate for as action a The bald assertion of does not exist. system. present American under officer, he executive Gener- , tendency drift towards Police State States or a United constable al pause. The free Americans all uncon gives beat, ;some accepted cannot be remote as a extra-judicial enlargement stitutional proof judicial process. [substitute power governmental coercive a as arises presumption No sufficiency growth and cancerous frightening our based on law evidence enforcement of- we Once assumed as body politic. axio conclusions. ficer’s presumed a citizen innocent matic tendency proved guilty. The until plea Appellee’s alleged No. no defense proof the burden of to shift
governments of action prius the cause and the nisi their prove innocence is inde citizens overruling court erred the challenging and intolerable. fensible demurrer. glean are able to We bare Reversed and remanded. up in the set letter of the Com- сonclusions missioner, it is whether claimed that STAKELY, JJ., SIMPSON and concur. LAWSON, said facilities. Said result. remove J., in the concurs figures letter was in words and LIVINGSTON, J.,C. and GOODWYN follows: Merrill, JJ., dissent. “ ‘April Lott, ‘Mr. Manager, C. L. District “ GOODWYN, (dissenting). Justice “ ‘Southern Bell & Tele- below, Appellant, plaintiff brought action graph Company, “ appellee damages at claiming ‘Birmingham 3, Alabama her tele- cutting discontinuing off or “ ‘Dear : Mr. Lott phone amended, the com- service. As last “ plaint consisted three Count counts. your ‘This is order to remove the cutting charged appellee “negligently” with list telephones attached which are service; off count “wan- with illegal purposes. used for These tele- service; tonly” cutting off and count phones are not to be reconnected with- wantonly, maliciously, “willfully, out a Court order or advice from me. “ intentionally, off wrongfully” cutting ‘Sincerely yours, “ Appellee’s demurrer such servicе. Eugene “Bull” Connor ‘/s/ amended, complaint, as last was overruled. Safety.’ Commissioner of Public Thereupon appellee pleas. entered two “Attached said letter was the list plea general The first issue. therein, telephones referred Plea follows: which, part perti- in the thereof here April 6, 1951, “Plea On the de- nent said: engaged fendant business Pike, white, male, at ‘Lewis lives City Alabama, Birmingham, as a Avenue, South, 1117 Thirteenth public utility furnishing intrastate and has listed 4-3075 and 4-1420. pub- interstate service to the operates negro Lewis Pike also beer lic. Ensley joint at 1535-20th St. —Tele- 6, 1951, April “Prior to He is a well-known 6-9171. with call number 6-9171 was installed operator lottery City, operating in the *7 place of by defendant in a business at Lottery the Louis House and has Joe Street, Ensley, 1535 Twentieth being three pending at least cases in the operated by plaintiff plaintiff and Courts.’ various husband, telephоne her said was that, acting “The defendant avers April 6, 1951, on therein was the compliance in with the order contained only telephone premises in said either letter from the in said Commissioner 2nd, 1951, April 6, April on 1951. Safety the City, of Public said was addressed communication to the “Defendant further that avers April under date of plaintiff April letter dated received a by in figures the defendant words and the Commissioner of from Public follows, to-wit: as City Safety the Birmingham, “ Alabama, who the was at time ‘We have information the which in- responsible law-enforcing agent that dicates facilities City, you in charge being said and who service was furnished Department, advising its Police have been in this used con- that defendant said nection with unlawful fa- activities. Therefore, you notify is cilities furnished this to defendant at that premises 6, 1951, April said known all serv- as 1535 on Street, present Ensley, place Twentieth being iсe at the time rendered corporate you Street, within the limits at Ensley, to 1535-20th said City subject jurisdic- its be discontinued. will tion, were being pur- used for Lott illegal C. L. ‘“/s/ poses, directing Manager.* ‘District the defendant instructions, for use, stated in said as was delivered “Said communication purposes, illegal constituted reasonable prem- person charge said Company cause for the to believe the tele- immediately preceding the at ises used, justi- illegally thus being said time of the removal of did, fying its removal. facilities, and the defendant April 6, 1951, said remove appear question that does call number facilities with 6-9171 has heretofore been before court. premises, Twentieth said viz.: However, it has been dealt with in other Ensley, orderly, Street, in an lawful jurisdictions, unanimity but this be proper manner and unless the decisions. guilty of no wrong, defendant was complained of.” wrong My occаsion research discloses when question has been considered in other plea as- appellant demurred to jurisdictions, usually has in- there been separate thirty-eight and several signing statute, volved the of a reasonableness overruled, being The demurrer grounds. body, a rule of a regulatory state or federal non-suit, appellant for a which was moved public utility. appar- or a rule of It is appeal presents This for review granted. problem, presented ent that our as propriety court in action pleadings, Here, is somewhat different. overruling plea the demurrer- to question, statute or rule is involved. then, simply stated, presented is it, question whether As I see for the Tele- phone Company, whether, in the is absence of statute under facts averred decision subject, justified or rule on the plea appellee justified in is in dis- discon- continuing when appellant’s telephone Spe-¡ service do tinuing responsible cifically, so appellee,; law enforcement is whether officer represents i who appellant’s telephone pursuant removing that such service illegal purposes. used the instructions from Commissioner it, (As principle applicable I Safety City see of Public here Birmingl applicable ham, justified likewise be if a accepting the order- would statute involved.) My or rule were view reasonable cause of said Commissioner Telephone Company rely- believe that representations purpose. Appellant’s on the of such en- illegal public forcement officer appellee, as a utili- use of insistence and, accordingly, should not ty, without discrim- must serve damages be liable when unjustly has and that she been ination at the of such discontinued officer. discontinuance discriminated service; plea 2 her does *8 generally public It held that a she or that either her husband not show utility, by very reason of nature for personally illegal business, obligated to furnish “its they any that had nor notice or purposes commodity general pub service or knowledge being used for that il- lic, part or that of which it has permitted they purposes or that legal serve, arbitrary to undertaken without pur- for illegal to use said one C.J.S., Utilities, discrimination.” Public 73 is further contended that poses. b, p. required 7 999. But it cannot be § deprived her discontinuance illegal for purposes. to furnish service process due property without of law her Am.Jur., Telegraphs Telephones, 52 and § the Fifth and violation of Fourteenth in 123; 93, p. Nichols, Utility Public Service to the Constitution Amendments Discrimination, VII, Chap. 9, p. § States. United in Am.Jur., As thus stated 52 196. Tele Telephone positiоn taken Telephones, Cum.Supp. graphs and 84.1: § Company is that instructions duty Safety Public re- “It is the com- Commissioner appellant’s service and pany because of to furnish facilities moval drops in favor of nection or all discrimination connections pay appli- anyone will when it receives notice from federal who by the or state enforcing agencies tariff rate and abide law that cable utility. supplied regulations being contrary reasonable ” telephone company’s duty to But a law.’ limited to lawful furnish service is The court there said: compelled service, and it cannot company telegraph was notified purposes which furnish service * * for California General illegal, are writing illegitimate such use of that principles, In the it not light of these drops being several made practicable reasonable rule of law Shеriff cities in California says which utility that a dis- California, County, that of Kern such responsible continuing service when a city Bak made use utility enforcement officer notifies the that ersfield, McBride does not California. pur- illegal such service is used for places complain illegal that poses requests the service be dis- sufficiently described, misuse are continued use? I illegal because of such the statement of the notices but so; support think and this conclusion finds use are not substantiated. cases, among the following others: agree notifying We do not Co., Cir., McBride v. Western Union Tel. supply required to officers are 1948, 1, 3, 4; Seamon, King 171 F.2d probative company telegraph facts 859, 861; Fla., 1952, County Dade 59 So.2d in the trial! to be adduced in court Supply Rail- News Dealers v. Florida Co. of the cases stated the1 of violation road & Public Utilities Commission notices. County Supply Dade News Dealers Co. v. complaint “McBride’s contained two 1950, Co., Fla., & Southern Bell Tel. Tel. action. We can see es- causes of 90; 89, Bell Hagerty 48 So.2d v. Southern difference between them. In sential Co., 1940, Telegraph & telegraph he states com- both 570; Dente v. New York Fla. 199 So. ‘required by order of should Co., Sup., Westchester supply plain- continue to the court to 691, 692; County, 55 N.Y.S.2d (Emphasis tiff facilities.’ with such Manfredonio, 1944, Application of West- contends, however, He supplied.) County, 770, 52 chester 183 Misc. N.Y.S.2d requires action his second cause of 392, 393; Restmeyer People rel. ex company disregard telegraph Telephone Co., 1916, App. New York the law enforcement notices of officers N.Y.S. Div. past concern a they wrongdo- because beginning and treat it as de McBride v. novo the case of Western Un- Co., supra appellant litigation supplying 3], ion F.2d Tel. [171 drоp compel company telegraphic and services sought telegraph company him. refuses wire service to him. The restore to restore service based its refusal on Fed- “The effect of such construction Regulation eral Communication’s Tariff nugatory provisions make would *9 provided which as follows: (8) A 219(8). of Section new use stopped only furnished under to be ‘Facilities this would follow long purpose any enough bringing not be used for for the of tariff shall another directly indirectly process any in manner or such suit as The of or here. any indefinitely federal of law or the violation would continue violation any only through stoppages of states minor an im-
laws
pass
equip-
potent Attorney
the circuits
or
General. The tele-
which
located,
the telegraph
graph
may rely
ment
and
on the
company
At-
company
right
torney
reserves thе
to discon-
and the county
General’s
sher-
any drop
or con-
justify
tinue the service
notices as
iff’s
sufficient
Dade
In
later- Florida- cases of
company’s
restore
telegraph
refusal
Supply
Flor-
Co.
complaints
County News Dealers
services, which,
both
Commission
continuing
ida
& Public Utilities
Railroad
it, would be' a
describe
Supply
County News Dealers
supplied.)
and Dade
past
(Emphasis
services.”
Co., supra,
Tel.
Bell
& Tel.
Co. v. Southern
Hagerty
Bell
In
v. Southern
Supreme
of that- state held
Court
Attorney
Co., supra, the
Telegraph
&
Gen-
company
telephone
was warranted
the tele-
advised
of the United States
eral
discontinuing
to the News Dealers
service
using
Hagerty was
phone company that
so
when notified to do
Supply Co.
lottery
promote
company's
facilities
Attorney
Florida
General because such
and elsewhere and
in Florida
schemes
pur-
being
used for unlawful
service
be
that the service
discontinued
demanded
poses. There under
'consideration
aiding
pain
held to account
Rule
Commission
became
the Fed-
conspiring in the violation of
April 1,
rule con-
effective
1950. Said
Attorney Gen-
anti-lottery
eral
laws.
following:
tained the
telephone
also advised the
eral of Florida
company
Hagerty
using its tele-
“was
any
utility
such
is noti-
“Whenever
maintenance
facilities
aid
any
writing
state or Fed-
fied
promotion
houses
in the
gambling
or
of'
acting
eral
law enforcement officer
contrary
gambling”
of Flor-
laws
jurisdiction,
apparent
within his
either
ida,
that the service be dis-
directly
Commission,
through
or
demands,
response to these
continued.
telephone
telegraph
certain
fa-
or
Hagerty
notified
part thereof,
any
are being
cilities
Hag-
discontinued.
that service would
have been used in
used or
violation
equity
thereupon filed his bill in
erty
any
Federal law or the laws
temporary restraining
order
a
secured
Florida,
utility
then
State
shall
company prohibiting it
directed to
disconnect and remove such facilities
discontinuing
The com-
the service.
from
and discontinue all
and tele-
interposing as
de-
filed its answer
graph service rendered over said facili-
be-
to discontinue service
fense its
ties.”
alleged
violation of state and
cause
rule,
Pursuant
and the demand made
laws
on it
federal
company notified the News
Supply
Dealers
prosecuting
and federal
offi-
the state
Co. that
General of Florida
upheld
court
The trial
answer
cers.
had
that all
demanded
facilities furnished
company.
appeal,
On
telephone company to
Supply
said
Supreme
say
Court has this to
Florida
discontinued,
that,
there-
Fla.
71 those are process, broadly nish such service to who “Procedural due reasonably rudimentary use it for an speaking, contemplates sure to purpose.” requirements play, of fair whether in a court or an authority, administrative authority Although to the con there is open hearing include a fair and trary, Chesapeake Andrews & Potomac v. legally before a constituted court or D.C.D.C., Telephone Co., 1949, F.Supp. 83 authority, oppor with notice and 966, 968, 969; Cincinnati & Giordullo v. tunity present argu evidence Co., Suburban Bell Ohio Com. ment; representation by counsel, if de Pl., 1946, 859; 858, People 71 N.E.2d v. ; the claims sired and information 15, Brophy, 1942, Cal.App.2d P.2d 120 49 party, of the opposing with reasonable 946; Co., Whyte York v. New opportunity to them. Gar controvert Sup., 1947, County, York 73 N.Y.S.2d New 97; Reid, 254, rett v. 244 13 Ala. So.2d 138, 139; Valentine, 1945, New Shillitani v. Co., Shields v. Utah Idaho Cent. R. 77, 127, County, York 184 Misc. 53 N.Y.S.2d 160, 177, 305 83 L.Ed. U.S. 59 S.Ct. 130, 131, 132, persuaded that the 134. I am 111; States, Morgan United v. 304 ,principle approved in line of cases here 1, 773, 1129; 42 58 82 L.Ed. U.S. S.Ct. fair, inbefore reasonable and discussed 479; Greyling Frahn v. Amer.Jur. practicable and, being in aid of enforce Corp., 580, Realization So. 239 Ala. ment, public policy. with sound accords 758.” Therefore, respectfully I dissent from majority holding. is to be noted that In State ex rel. Steele v. Board of Educa- appellant is not without recourse to have Fairfield, 254, tion 260, Ala. 40 So.2d judicially her 689, 695, petition which was a for manda- 1940, heard and determined. Code mus, Tit. court, in speaking an adminis- 57, 63, 79. §§ hearing, trative said: particular “While pro- form of LIVINGSTON, J., MERRILL, J., C. prescribed cedure is for such hearings, opinion. concur in the foregoing process due must be observed. Such is generally hearings pro- rule as to On Rehearing. vided for statute before administra- ” agencies. tive (Citing cases.) MAYFIELD, Justice. In the Zeigler case of v. South & North appellee Counsel for the great insist Company, Ala. R. R. 598, 599, vigor Ala. that Section 6 of the Constitution of Stone said: Alabama protection affords no Justice process except abuse of “due of law” process ‘Due undoubtedly of law support in criminal posi cases. In of means, in the due pro- course of legal they tion holding Supreme cite the ceedings, according to those rules and Court Sepe Daneker, of Rhode Island in v. forms which have been established for 76 R.I. A.2d and Taglianetti * * protection private rights *. England Co., New R.I., 1954, Tel. & Tel. They were intended to secure the indi- provision construing A.2d vidual from the arbitrary exercise of Rhode Island Constitution similar to art. powers government, unrestrained 6 of the Alabama Constitution of 1901. § by thе principles established private Regardless position Supreme of what rights and distributive justice.’ Cooley— may Court of Rhode Island have taken in Cons.Lim. 355. interpretation Constitution, of their own Supreme process Court of Alabama implies has consist “Due of law the right required ently process repeatedly person due thereby affected to be civil, present of law in as well as criminal before pro- cases. the tribunal which Morgan the civil case of Almon judgment upon Coun nounces 241, 246, ty, 511, 515, life, liberty, 245 Ala. 16 So.2d property, in its most comprehensive sense; was said: heard, by to be ?2 ap- otherwise, protection afforded have the In addition to the and to testimony or *13 Alabama, every by pellant the Four- proof, the law of controverting, right of ques- the Federal constitu- Amendment to which bears on teenth material fact any any prohibits depriving of Statе in matter involved. tion right
tion of
If
life,
property
liability
person
liberty
be con-
of
or
any
of fact
him,
process
of
Even Rhode
against
this
law.
Island
presumed
due
clusively
provision of the Federal Consti-
[Emphasis
law.”
admits
process
not due
of
applicable
civil cases. Notice
to
tution
supplied.]
appel-
hearing, which
denied the
were
660,
Miller, 215 Ala.
The cases of Wise v.
summarily
her
was
lant before
Casualty
of
913;
Ins. Co.
&Life
111 So.
removed,
process.
due
the backbone of
are
70,
Womack,
So.
228 Ala.
Tennessee v.
Supreme
Court of
United States
22,
Boaz, 229 Ala.
880; Byars
Town of
v.
Craft, 182
case of Simon v.
the Alabama
Tate,
383;
ex rel.
Ridge v. State
155 So.
1165,
836,
427,
L.Ed.
said:
S.Ct.
U.S.
742,
349,
civil cases.
are all
Ala.
89 So.
court, in
in a state
proceedings
discussing
cases,
wheth-
these
In each of
process of
due
order to constitute
due
of
a denial
was or was
er there
Amend.,
14th
need
under U.S.Cоnst.
axiomatic
court assumed
process,
any particular mode,
they
if
be
in civil cases
lawof
process
that due
regular
proceed-
course of
.constitute
constitutionally
in Alabama.
guaranteed
given
which notice is
ings in
sub-
of
pronouncement on this
most recent
our
¡claim asserted,
opportunity
an
Ala.,
Hinkle,
Phillips
af-
ject, in the case of
against
[Empha-
to
it.”
1955,
10,
804,
800,
defend
decided March
forded
78 So.2d
supplied.]
sis
language in Dearborn
quoted
this court
864, 867, as
84,
Johnson,
173 So.
234 Ala.
appellee
next
Eminent counsel for
follows:
process
not violated
argue that due
was
invalidity of
we think the
'do
‘Nor
scope
because the
Title
Sections
theory
be rested
act is to
the.
are
63 and
Code of
broad
Alabama
process
law. Our
a denial
due
appeal
enough
to countenance
line
the author-
recognize, in
cases
appellant,
Commission
Public Service
to
process
generally,
the due
ities
By
have her
service restored.
to
6)
(section
the Constitution
clause of
token,
if
the same
commissioner’s
it
applicable
proceedings, and
to tax
than
based
fact
mere
rather
this court
State
so declared
suspicion,
apply
had
he
Howard,
Bailey &
Tax Commission v.
for an order
Public Service Commission
913;
State Tax
Ala.
60 So.
dis-
directed
Coal,
&Iron
v. Tennessee
Commission
telephone;
continue the subscriber’s
Co.,
The same involuntary con- tapping,
behalf of wire seizure, fessions, unreasonable search corpus. suspension of habeas the writ experience Eng-
However, is the process people that due
lish-speaking guarantees fundamental
the other *14 of indi- Rights Bill are the cornerstone rights liberty, these basic
vidual and that away disregarded nor eroded
can neither be ever-strengthening exec- the winds government.
utive branch application rehearing is denied. STAKELY, JJ.,
SIMPSON concur.
LAWSON, J., concurs the result.
LIVINGSTON, J., and C. GOODWYN MERRILL, JJ., dissent. So.2d 274
(Mrs.) Mattie ELLIOTT et al.
Clyde LENOIR et al.
Supreme Court of Alabama.
May 12, 1955.
Rehearing Denied June Christopher, Butler,
Lindsey & ap- pellants.