mx PARTE Krnnnnanw. 53
determine, has been tried by a. jury according to the usual forms, and been
heard in the supreme court of the state, and the case, for want of any federal!
question, has been rejected at the United States supreme court, his imprison-
ment is not “without due process of law. "1
Petition for VVrit of Habeaa Corpus.
The re1ator’s case is thus stated in his petition:
"The petition of Columbus D. Kinnebrew, who alleges that he is a citizen
of the United Statesand of the state of Georgia, respectfully showeth that he
is illegally restrained of his liberty in violation of article first, section eight,
and paragraph third of the constitution of the United States by being deprived
of his liberty by L. P. Thomas, the sheriff of Fulton county, in the Northern
district of Georgia, by virtue of an alleged accusation, with the verdict and
judgment of the court, or sentence, rendered thereon, which was depending
in, tried, and said verdict and sentence rendered by the city court of Atlanta,
of said Fulton county; a copy of which said accusation, verdict, and sentence
is hereto attached asa part of this petition, and is marked · Exhibit A.' Peti-
tioner shows that he was accused on said accusation,. tried, and found guilty,
and sentenced by said court as and at the times stated in said Exhibit A, (said
convictiou,,verdict, and sentence being had and pronounced on 6th day of
July, A. D. 1887,) for an alleged violation of what is known as the · General
Local Option Liquor Law,’ which said alleged law is a pretended act of the
general assemblyof Georgia, approved by the governor 18th day of September,
1S85,entitled an *Act to provide for preventing the evils of intemperauce, by
local option in any county in this state, by submitting the question of pro-
hibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors to the qualified voters of such county;
to provide penalties for itsviolation, and for other purposes.’ Thecase made
by the testimony and submitted to the jury being that petitioner had bartered
and sold for a valuable consideration, alcoholic, spirituous, malt, and intoxi-
cating liquors to one R. S. Ogborn, and other persons, on the 26th day of April,
1887, and other days since 1st day of July, 1886; said liquor not being domes- ,
tic wines, nor wines sold for sacramental purposes, nor pure alcohol. Peti-
tioner shows that the jury were instructed that the law which petitioner was _
charged with violating was said general local option liquor law, as appears
from the charge of the court, which is a part of the record of said case in said
city court of Atlanta, and is as follows: · The jury is instructed that it is un-
lawful for any person, within the limits of any county of this state in which
what is known as the "General Local Option Liquor Law" is of force, to sell
or barter for valuable consideration, either directly or indirectly, or to give
away to induce trade at any place of business, or furnish at any other public
places, any alcoholic, spirituous, malt, or intoxicating liquors, or intoxicating
hitters orother drinks, which, if drank to excess, will produce intoxication!
Petitionershowsthat the provisions of the said general local option liquor law
which relate to the prohibition of or rendering illegal the sale of liquor, and
to what liquors, bitters, or drinks are prohibited to be sold or given away, are
the sixth and eighth sections of said act. All of the other provisions of said
pretended act relate to the method of invoking the exercise ofthe local option
provided for therein, of holding an election, canvassing, and declaring the re-
sult, with penalties for fraud in such an election, or for the violation of the
hereinafter recited sections of said act. Said sixth and eighth sections are as
follows:   l l
‘Respecting.the constitutional guaranty of due process of law, see Hutsoniv. Pro-
itection D.ist.,.(Cal.) 16 Pac. Rep. 549 and note; People v. Hau , (Mich.)   N. W. Rep. V
§ gpSgg;1ge vg Com., (Va.) 5 B., E. Rep. 565; School-Dist. v. Seminary, (Pa.) 12 Atl.