Williams v. Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta Application for Stay of Execution
Public Court Documents
October 3, 1966

Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Williams v. Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta Application for Stay of Execution, 1966. 824b1e36-c99a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/63ecb914-81a1-4574-8cb5-a53fa9e0bc90/williams-v-housing-authority-of-the-city-of-atlanta-application-for-stay-of-execution. Accessed June 13, 2025.
Copied!
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term, 1966 Ho. ____ „ JOSEPHINE WILLIAMS, Petitioner v . THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA. APPLICATION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL COURT OF FULTON COUNT*, « !N THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A STAY INJUNCTION JACK GREENBERG CHARLES H. JONES, JR. CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON MICHAEL DAVIDSON 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 HOWARD MOORE, JR.859 1/2 Hunter Street, N.W. Atlanta, Georgia Attorneys for Petitioner ( r i IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term, 1966 No. JOSEPHINE WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA. APPLICATION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL COURT OF FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A STAY INJUNCTION----- To The Honorable Hugo L. Black, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and Circuit Justice for the Fifth Circuit: Petitioner, Josephine Williams, an indigent tenant of public housing, prays that an order be entered staying the execution of the judgment of the Civil Court of Fulton County, Georgia, directing the Marshal of the Civil Court to evict the petitioner from a public housing project owned and operated by respondent. The eviction has been ordered following the denial by the Civil Court on February 28, 1967, of petitioner’s motion for leave to defend without posting a bond and good security in a summary eviction proceeding. Unless the stay is granted there is great danger that the case will become moot. Cf. Willie WilT W * , al- * v - Shaff^ « 149 S*E* 2d 668• cert, denied 17 L.Ed. 2d 683 (Jan. 23., 1967). The proceeding was instituted by the respondent, The Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta. r Stays of the eviction order have been denied by the trial court and by the Supreme Court of Georgia. Petitioner prays that the order of this Court stay the eviction pending the full disposition of her appeal to the Georgia Supre and pending the filing and disposition of a petition for writ of certiorari in this Court if the Georgia Supreme Court affirms the judgment of the court below. The jurisdiction to issue the stay requested pending the full disposition of petitioner's appeal to the Georgia 4. ^ k,, o p ii S C §165l(a) and Rule 51 Supreme Court is granted by 28 U.b.L,. siojiv of the Revised Rules of this Court, in that such a stay is necessary in aid of the ultimate jurisdiction of this Court under 28 U.S.C. §1257(3) to review by writ of certiorari a determination by the state courts of the federal constitutional issues raised herein. Petitioner has contended in the court below that her eviction from public housing without being given notice of the reason for eviction or an opportunity to defend because she is unable to afford a bond, denies her the due process and equal protection of the laws secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. - 2 - Statement Of The Case Petitioner is an indigent tenant residing in the Herman E. Perry Homes, a housing project maintained and operated by respondent Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta. Her tenancy is governed by a month to month dwelling lease dated March 25, 1966. The Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta is a public body created pursuant to the Housing Authorities Law, Ga. Code Ann., §99-1002, and financed by the United States pursuant to 4 2 U.S.C. §§1401, et seq. Petitioner has been a tenant of the Housing Authority for five (5) years an occupant of her present apartment at 1499 Drew Place, N. W. , for about eleven (ll) months. She resides there with four minor children and is unemployed. November 1, 1966, Mr. A. F. Smith, Housing Manager of Perry Homes, informed petitioner by letter that the Housing Authority was terminating her tenancy in thirty (30) days. L The Housing Manager neither-'informed the petitioner of the reason for the termination nor afforded her.a hearing. December 1, 1966, petitioner tendered rent, in the amount of $26.50, to the Housing Authority which returned it with a renewed demand that she vacate the premises. December 6, 1966, the Housing Authority commenced summary eviction proceedings in the Civil Court of Fulton County pursuant to Ga. Code Ann. j I §61-301, et seq. (1966). December 8, 1966, her attorney requested by telephone and Western Union teAgram a hearing and specification of the grounds for the notice to vacate and the eviction proceeding. Respondent did not reply. Petitioner tendered to the trial court an affidavit alleging that her term had not expired and filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma PauPeTil> on the ground that her indigency prevented the filing of the bond with the security required by the statute. Ga. Code Ann., §§ 61-303, 305 (1966). 3 - The Georgia summary eviction statute, Ga. Code Ann., §§ 301-305, provides that the landlord can obtain an eviction by filing an affidavit with a judge of the Superior Cour Justice of the Peace that the tenant has held over or has failed to pay rent; the judge may then issue a dispossessory warrant ordering the Sheriff to dispossess the tenant and his possessions, Ga. Code Ann., § 61-302 (1966). The tenant may arrest the proceedings and prevent his eviction by filing a counter-affidavit raising a meritorious defense and tendering a bond with good security payable to the landlord, for the payment of such sum, with costs, as may be recovered against him on the trial of the case. Ga. Code Ann., §§ 61-303, 305, 306 (1966). If the tenant is not able to furnish the security bond, he will be summarily evicted. may be arrested: it/i ''n 'i Arrest of proceedings by tenant, counter-affidavitand bond - the tenant may arrest thp oroceedinq and prevent the removal of himsel and his goods9from ?he land by declaring on oath that his lease or rent has n0A eS g r® ’miSes over he is not holding possession of the pre? itand beyond his terS, or that the rent claimed is not due, or that he does not hold the Premise » either by lease, or rent or at will, or by sufferance or otherwise, from the person who “ dI r S S ^ t ^ e ^ i l e ^ a K o prJS ses, * l o ^ e l ^ l n f o r ^ ^ ; ^ % t ^ a U a y ’ be recovered against him on the trial of the case. (Act 1827, Coff, 902 Acts 1866, p. 25). The security referred to above is substantial. Ga. Code Ann., § 61-305 (1966) provides: "If the issue specified in [§ 61-3041 shall bedetermined against the tenant, judgment^shall l l t??pufaterto°be paid". . . and such judgment aniPcase shall also provide for the payment of ISturfdouble rent until the tenant surrenders possession of the lands or tenements^ the landlo d after an appeal or otherwise • • • * Insurance companies ^ ^ o U a t e r a l ^ o r double necessary for a tenant o P ^ up a$ an unrecover- ■ the rent for about £ *rit of Certiorari to theable bond premium^ Petitio v Shaffer, cert, deniedSupreme Court of Georqia, p. 7, Wi l Hams v.._ ------ , 17 L.Ed. 2d 683 (1967). • 4 - Petitioner's motion for leave to proceed without tendering bond was denied by the Civil Court of Fulton County, February 28 1967. Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Georg was filed the same day and applicant promptly filed a motion for stay of execution of the judgment which was taken under consideration by the trial court until March 8, 1967. the Superior Court of Fulton County in W i U i a m ^ S b a f f a . 222 Ga. 324, 149 S.E. 2d 668 (1966) had previously decided it had no jurisdiction to issue a stay pending appeal to the Supreme Court of Georgia, it is highly probable that the Civil Court, which has concurrent jurisdiction, will reach the same conclusion, and deny the stay. .,_ jttnrnpv Howard Moore, Esq.,March 1, 1967, applicant’s attorney, tendered an application for stay to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Georgia which was refused. Mr. Moore than sought to fil an application for stay with the Chief justice of the Georgia Supreme Court, who refused to entertain the application unti disposition by the Fulton County Civil Court of the stay motion pending there. See Appendix, pp. 13a, 15a, 20a. If the trial court refuses to stay the eviction, applicant will be subject to immediate dispossession unless the Georgl Supreme Court issues a stay. However, if the Georgia Supreme Court either fails to act upon petitioner's motion for a stay prior to eviction or denies the motion petitioner can be dis- possessed immediately. In either event, previous decisions of „ . that the case would thereby becomethe Georgia Supreme Court hold th ,v,lp See William ̂ Shaffer, supra, moot and thus non-reviewable. bee will-- - and cases cited there. In WiUlama V. Shaffer, suoia, fn. 1, petitioners' reques for a stay by the Superior Court of Fulton County was denied March 2, 1966, but the Sheriff was directed not to execute the dispossessed warrants until further directions from thee our The delay in execution followed petitioners' representation t a they would apply to the Supreme Court of Georgia for a stay, otherwise the warrant would, presumably, have been executed immediately. Judge Duckworth, Chief Judge of the Georgia - 5 - Supreme Court publicly stated (see Exhibit, p.22a ip the Appendix) that it was not the policy of the Court to issue stays until cases were docketed. Since docketing often requires a con siderable amount of time, often as much as fifteen (15) days counsel did not file an application with the Supreme Court and petitioners' were evicted March 5, 1966 - three days after the stay was denied. Undoubtedly, petitioner here might well be evicted March 8, 1967. REASONS FOR GRANTING A STAY Pi^DING DI^POSITION OF MOVANTS’ SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES IN THE COURTS BE LOU---_— ------ This Court, Or An Individual Justice, Has Power To Grant A Stay To Pr|s^ ® , Its Ultimate Jurisdiction Over Federal Constitutional Questions. This Court, or a justice thereof, has the power to issue an appropriate order pending the disposition by lower courts . of substantial federal issues, where such an order is necessary to preserve the jurisdiction of the Court-to review the action of those courts. 28 U.S.C. §165l(a); Rule 51, Revised Rules of this Court. This power includes the issuance of a stay injunction to prevent the execution of a lower court order becoming moot. See, Maxwell v. Bishoo, Oct. Term 1966, Misc. 1025. (Mr. Justice White stayed the execution of a sentence of death imposed by a state court, pending the filing in this Court of a petition for certiorari to review the denial of a certificate of probable cause by a judge of the Court of ppe for the Eighth Circuit to appeal to that court the denial of a writ of habeas corpus by a district court.) Federal remission v. Dean Foods Co.. 384 U.S. 507; lohnsnn v. Stevenson, 335 U.S. 80; In re Bart. 7 L.ed. 2d 767; Ohio River Contract .Co . Gordon. 244 U.S. 68 (referring to Chief Justice White’s order restraining proceedings in the state trial court); Naturel_Gas r.Q. of West Vi rolnia v. Public Service Co. of West Virginia, et al., 294 U.S. 698 (order of the Court restraining enforcement 6 Of a rate order pending disposition of the appeal.) 2/ 11 The Execution Of The State Dispossessory Warrant Should Be Stayed To Enable Petitioner To Secure Adjudication _ Important Federal Constitutional Claims. i Tha ailanatians herein show .that petitioner is being deprived • S w altitn.inn,! rights to due process and e.quaj, protection of the laws. On the basis of the allegations made in the courts below and in this application, petitioner has raised important federal constitutional questions concerning the obligations of a state to allow equal access to its courts in a civil action for ejectment and to provide an adequate hearing before a tenant in public housing is denied those benefits. As to the first issue, its importance is indicated by the dissents to the denial of certiorari in Mil]jams u. Shaffer. 17 L.ed. 2d 683. And the question of the obligation of a state public housing authority to provide minimum guarantees of.duejproc.ess before terminating the benefits it is charged by law to administer is presently before this Court in Thorne v. Housing Authority of the City_of Durham, cert, granted, 17 L.ed 2d 432. Here, it is alleged, petitioner is a tenant of a public housing project owned and operated by the Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta, ah agency of the State of Georgia. The Housing Authority is seeking to evict petitioner pursuant to a provision in a leas1 that allows termination and eviction after thirty (30) days' notice without notice of reason or a hearing. * , Fprrv Co. v. Public—Sprvi C£2/ See also Clark % _... Ponncylvania. 291 U.S. 227,Uommissinn or l-ommonwea 11 ---■■P | Roberts entered in § 415.(1936 ed. ) 7 f The Authority has filed in the Civil Court of Fulton County an action for ejectment under the provisions of Ga. Code Ann. §§ 61-301, 302. Under Georgia procedure a tenant may arrest eviction pro ceedings begun by his landlord. The tenant must declare under oath facts which entitle him to remain in possession. Ga. Code Ann., §61-303. The issue will then be tried in court, but only if the tenant tenders a bond with good security for the payment of the sum, with costs, as may be recovered against him at trial. By statute judgment in landlord-tenant actions is for double the rent reserved. Ga. Code Ann., §61-305. If the tenant does not tender a bond his counter-affidavit is dismissed and he is summarily evicted. Here, petitioner, because of her indigency, is unable to provide the required bond. Instead, she submitted to the trial court an affidavit in lieu of the bond attesting to her poverty and seeking to make her defenses to the eviction. Petitioner has continued to tender the rents due to the Housing Authority. The Authority refused to accept the rents and the petitione then tendered the same to the Civil Court of Fulton County and moved the court for an order directing its clerk to receive them during the pendency of the action. The court below, however, refused to accept the affidavit of poverty and therefore refused to consider petitioner's defenses to the eviction. Rather, the court rendered summary judgment for the landlord, issued an ejectment order, and has refused to stay that order pending an appeal to the State Supreme Court. Thus, the state has created a procedure that is available only to those with means. The poor are denied due process and the equal protection of the laws. Even if the state has no obligation to establish a procedure for tenants to defend evic tions, once having established a procedure, it must be open to rich and poor alike. In Griffin v. I) Unp.is, 351 U.S. 12, the court held that although states are not required to provide appellate review, a state that does grant it cannot "discriminate - 8 - // against some convicted defendants on account of their poverty." Id. at 18. And in Burns v. Ohio. 360 U.S. 252, the court held that an indigent’s right to equal protection was not altered by any distinction between appeals as of right and leaves to appeal in the reviewing court's discretion, and said: "There is no rational basis for assuming that indigents' motions for leave to appeal will be less meritorious than those of other defendants." Id. at 257-58. It is quite clear that the bond requirement works to the disadvantage of the poor. There is no valid legislative purpose which can sustain this burden on the poor. It may be suggested that the bond serves to provide a fund the landlord can reach in case of judgment. In Hoyey v. Elliott, 167 U.S. 409, the trial court had struck a defendant's answer and refused to permit him to try his case on the merits because he had disobeyed the court's order to pay the subject matter of the controversy into the court's registry. This Court held that this violated the fundamental due process right of the defendant to be heard. The defendant's refusal to pay the subject matter into court might be punished in many ways, it was held, but not by denying his right to defend himself. Similarly here, the Georgia courts will have ample means to enforce a judgment but cannot deny the tenant's right to be heard. And see Justice Black's dis senting opinion in Mat:oral Union of Marine Cooks v. Arnold, 348 U.S. 37, at 47. Further, petitioner's tender of the rents to the Housing Authority and subsequently to the trial court is a fully adequate device for protecting respondent's interest in receiving rents during the pendency of the action. Edwards v̂ Habib. ____F.2d_____(No. 19,812, D.C. Cir., December 3, 1965). The landlord here, a public agency, does not need a bond if it can have its rents. Thus, the bond requirement imposed by Georgia law and as enforced by the state courts denies petitioner due process and equal protection of the laws because it prevents her from defend ing in an eviction action solely because of her indigency. See - 9 - r , n J dissenting to the denial of certiorarithe opinion of Douglas, J., dissenxmy in W D h ams v. Shaffer, 17 L.ed.2d 683. The second, although related, federal constitutional issue raised by petitioner arises from her status as a tenant in a public housing project. The Housing Authority sought to evict her under a lease provision allowing termination of the lease at the end of any month, without stating a reason or granting a hearing on those reasons. After petitioner sought to arrest the eviction proceedings by filing counter-affidavits, the Authority made a motion for summary judgment, in which, altho g contending that no reasons need be given, it gave for the time a number of reasons which allegedly justified the eviction. Because of the challenged Georgia statute and the refusal of the trial court to entertain any defenses to the eviction, petitioner has been prevented from challenging the reasons and from obtaining a hearing to investigate the validity of those reasons. Petitioner contends that she has been denied a public benefit by a state agency without due process of law. Thus, the case presents nearly the identical question now before this Court in Thorne v Hon i, , » "f No. 712, cert, granted, 17 L.ed.2d 432. Indeed, this case presents an even more extreme question of a denial of due process than does Ihorn^ since here petitioner has been barred from any hearing of any hind in state court. Not only has she not been gi'ven a hearing in the agency, she has been denied a trial, and unless a stay is granted she will be evicted without an appeal. i ) I B. A stay of the Execution nf the Disoossessory_Warrant is essential in the present case in order to,,_p.reserve petitioner* s constitutional clairns. | Unless a stay is granted, petitioner will be evicted Ij before her appeal is heard by the Georgia Supreme Court and she jji then will be without remedy. In Williams v.— Shaffer, 222 Ga. 324, 149 S.E. 2d 668, cert, denied 17 L.ed.2d 683 the Georgia | Supreme Court dismissed the appeal holding that a tenant’s eviction moots the controversy. In addition to raising serious questions of mootness, eviction pending appeal will cause the petitioner irreparable damage. The petitioner is an indigent with no opportunity to obtain comparable housing at a comparable rental. In Federal Tra^p Commission v. ..PearL_F_oodj5_Co. , .supra, the Court held that 28 U.S.C. §165l(a) empowered the federal courts to enjoin a merger pending a determination of the legality | of the merger by the Federal Trade Commission because otherwise it would be difficult for the Federal Trade Commission to devise an effective remedy after its decision on the merits. In' , Johnson v. Stevenson. 335 U'S. 80, this Court stayed the judgment of a district court pending appeal to the Court of Appeals in order to avoid the mooting of the question. Mr. Justice Warren, in In Re Bart. 7 L.ed 2d 767, stayed the petitioner's commitment pending final action on nis appeal by the Court of Appeals be cause of "the likelihood that the normal course of appellate review might otherwise cause the case to be moot... In Maxwell v. Bishop. 17 L.ed. 2d 671, Mr. Justice White had stayed the execution of a sentence of death imposed by a state court pending the filing of a petition for certiorari. This Court granted the petition and reversed the denial of a certificate of probable cause. These cases recognize the power of federal courts under the All Writs Act to preserve the status of litigants in actions not yet ripe for review by the court issuing the 11 /: • writ but which may subsequently be reviewed by that court. It the stay is granted, on the other hand, the respondent Housing Authority will not suffer any damages. Petitioner h tendered rents due to the landlord and has moved the Civil Court for an order directing the clerk of the court to accept the rents as they fall due. Although the Civil Court has denied petitioner's motion, petitioner still stands ready and willing to pay all rents as they fall due to the landlord or to any court which will accept them. 12 - / WHEREFORE, petitioner respectfully prays that the following order issue. Alternative relief is requested since time is of the essence and the status of the proceeding below with regard to the issuance and execution of the order of the trial court may change while their application is being considered. Hence, an order is requested. 1. Staying the issuance of any order by the Civil Court of Fulton County, Georgia, directing the eviction of petitioner from her apartment in Herman E. Perry Homes, and 2. In the event that any order has issued to the Marshal, staying the Marshal from executing the order and evicting the petitioner from her apartment. In the event that the petitioner has been evicted, petitioner prays for a stay injunction directing the respondent ̂ Housing Authority to reinstate her in her apartment or to make available to her the first suitable apartment that becomes available in any of the housing projects that it operates. Petitioner further prays that the stay order remain in effect pending the appeal in this case to the Supreme Court of Georgia and pending the filing and disposition of a petition to this Court for a writ of certiorari to review the deter mination of the Supreme Court of Georgia, if review is necessary or appropriate. Petitioner further asserts that she stands ready and willing to pay rents due respondent to respondent or into the court below during the pendency of this action, and that the continuation of any stay granted herein should be con ditioned on her continued payment of said rents. Respectfully submitted, JACK GREENBERG CHARLES H. JONES, JR. CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON MICHAEL DAVIDSON 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 HOWARD MOORE, JR. 859^ Hunter Street, N. W. Atlanta, Georgia Attorneys for Petitioner CERTTFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of the United States and that I have served a copy of the attached Application for Stay on Respondent by depositing a copy of the same in the United States mail, air mail postage prepaid, addressed to the attorney for respondent, R. Byron Attridge, Esq., King and Spalding, 343 Trust Company of Georgia Bank Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Attorney for Petitioner i IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term, 1966 No. ______ JOSEPHINE WILLIAMS, Petitioner v. THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA. APPENDIX TO APPLICATION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL COURT OF FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A STAY INJUNCTION JACK GREENBERG CHARLES H. JONES, JR. CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON MICHAEL DAVIDSON 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 HOWARD MOORE, JR. 859^ Hunter Street,N.W. Atlanta, Georgia Attorneys for Petitioner i 6337-P.2 Handbook of Public Assistance Administration Part IV 6000-6999 _____ Eligibility,Fair Hearings Assistance, and Services 7/9/6> 6337. Claimant Part icipat ion in the Hear in", (Continued) \/ant to be represented by legal counsel. Furthermore, the claimant m y bring any witnesses he desires to help him establish pertinent facts^and to explain his circumstances, it is his right to give all of the evidence on the points at issue he believes necessary without undue interference, to ask for substantiation of any state ments made by others and to present evidence in rebuttal. The best interests of the claimant are served by an informal procedure rather than in a formal court-type proceeding; however, the hear ing is subject to the requirements of due process. °33J. Hearing Record (Gee IV-6200, item 3h) The exclusive record on which the decision is based shall consist of (1) verbatim transcript of the hearing, the hearing officer's recommendation, and all documents, requests, papers, and other written evidence; or (2) the hearing officer's report on the hear ing to the deciding authority, including (a) a statement of the facts he believes to be substantiated by the evidence, (b) an evaluation of testimony, (c) comments on conflicting statements, (d) his recommendation, and (e) the attachment of all documents, requests, papers, and other written evidence submitted during the hearing process. The record is to be-made available for the claimant to examine, if he desires. 6339- Decision and Notification (Gee IV-6200, item 3i) The deciding authority is responsible for rendering a conclusive decision. In some instances, the deciding authority is not the hearing officer. In such instances, the deciding authority may adopt the recommendations of the hearing officer, or reject them and reach different conclusions on the basis of the evidence at hand, or refer the matter back to the hearing officer for a con tinuation of the hearing, because the materials submitted are insufficient to serve as the basis for a decision. *A prompt, definitive, and final decision means that the hearing authority will, in the name of the State agency, Issue a decision on all of the questions that have been made the subject of the hearing. Remanding the case to the local unit for further H.T. No. 56 Contents of Appendix to Motion for Stav Ini unction Page Motion for Leave to Proceed without Tendering ..... 1a-3aBond with Good Security ........ . ....4a,5aCounter-Affidavit, Pauper s Affidavit ........ ..... 6a-9aAmendment to Motion for Leave to Proceed .... Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Denying Defendant s Motion for Leave to Proceed and . Ordering Execution of Dispossessory Warran ....10a,11a . .......12a Notice of Appear .........*.... ,, ~__ + \ ........ 13a,14aMotion for Stay *.to u v u ....... Application for Stay (Georgia ....15a-19a .... 20a,21aAffidavit of Howard Moore, Jr...... Newspaper Statement of Chief Justice ....... 22aDuckworth of Georgia supreme .............. / / $ , # ■ -j IN THE CIVIL COURT OF FULTON COU25TY, GEORGIA HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA, Landlord, -vs- JOSEPHINE WILLIAMS, Tenant. X X X X X X CASE NO. 35154 DISPOSSESSORY PROCEEDINGS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PRCCEKD WITHOUT TENDERING BOND WITH GOOD SECURITY ___ Cones now, JOSEPHINE WILLIAMS, tenant in the above-styled dispossessory proceedings, and moves this Honorable Court for an order placing said case upon the Calendar of this Cou_t for plenary trial or such other proceeding as may be meet and proper upon the basis of her previously filed counter-affidavit, and pauper’s affidavit which is attached thereto, without the necessity of tendering bond with good security. As grounds therefor, movant shows as follows: !. That, by reason of her poverty, movant Is unable to tender a bond with good security as provided for in Title 61, Georgia Code Annotated, Section 30 3. Movant has an annual income of substantially loss than $3,0*0 per annum. Movant has tendered her rent in the amount of $26.SO to the landlord, and the landlord has refused to accept the same, without explanation. \ 2. That, the Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta,'is a quasi-public corporation, receiving federal assistance for the purpose of providing low cost housing to distressed families. The Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta, to carry out the previously stated purpose, receives - /cu- ; assistance from tho Government of the United States of America, 3, That the tenant, Josephine Williams, is the mother of four children, whose only source of income is $2.41 an hour from Project Uplift, a function of Economic Opportunity Atlanta, Inc. Said sum is paid movant for attending a class in food and home management five days a week for five hours a day. Movant has !no other income. Nor, doe3 movant have any stocks, bonds or real property or friends and relatives possessed of the same. 4. That Title 61, Georgia Code Annotated, §303, is un constitutional upon its face. Said statute violates the due process and equal protection of law clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, United States Constitution, and Article I, Paragraphs 3 and 25, Constitution of tho State of Georgia of 1945, in that, said soction invidiously bars movant from obtaining judicial review in the Courts of tho State of Georgia of any defenses which she may have to said eviction axTising under the First, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of tho Constitution of the United States solely because of her poverty; and said soction completely shuts off the Courts of the State of Georgia to moxTant solely because of her poverty. Said statute provides as follows: "61-303 (5307) Arrest of proceedings by tenant;_counter-affTdaylt and bond. - The tenant may arrest the "proceedings and pre vent the removal of himself and his goods from the land by declaring on oath that his lease or term of rent has not expired, and that ho is not holding possession of the premises over and beyond his term, or that tho rent claimed is not due, or that ho does not hold the premises, either by lease, or tent, or at will, or by sufferance, or otherwise, from the person who made tho affi- ' davit on which the warrant issued, or fx-om anyone under whom he claims the premises, or from anyone claiming the premises under him; provided such tenant shall at the same time 2 - - 7 % ) tender a bond with good security, pay able to the landlord, for the payment of such sum, with costs, as may be re covered against him on the trial of the case. (Act 1027, Cobb, 902. Acts IC0 6, p. 25.)" 5. The said statute as applied to. bar movant from proceeding in the Courts of the State of Georgia to directly challenge the dispossessory proceedings because of her poverty denies her due process and equal protection of law in violation of Section 1, Fourteenth Amendment, Const.itui.ion of the Unrced States, and of Article I, Paragraphs 3 and 25, Constitution of the State of Georgia of 1945. --) 6. That dispossessory proceedings were instituted in this Court against the movant on December: 6, 1966. , j WHEREFORE, movant prays that her motion bo inquired im.of hat said statute bo declared unconstitutional upon its face and in applied; and that the movant have an o;rder permitting her to iroceed without tendering a bond with good security due to hot- poverty. - 3 - - iilOWARD MOORE , JR. iC59 1/2 Hunter St., N. VJ. /Atlanta, Georgia 30314 MOVANT'S ATTORNEY . ... ■ . r-r -r _-flyeagv ■BMpggpvm-.v, '5F**c>*.: - »• 1 f f/ - IN THE CIVIL COURT OP FULTON COUNTY',, GEORGIA HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA, Landlord, vs. JOSEPHINE WILLIAMS Tenant. X X X X CASE MO. 19109 DISPOSSESSORY PROCEEDINGS COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT I lGEORGIA, FULTON COUNTY: !■ Personally comes JOSEPHINlTWILLIAMS, who on oath, declares v;ith reference to the eviction affidavit of the Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta,exhibited to her on Tuesday, December 6 , 1966, that ,ier term of rent has not expired, that she is not holding possession over .'and beyond her term, as alleged in said affidavit or otherwise. That the said dispossensory proceedings are instituted in deprivation of affiant's rights, privileges, and immunities, secured under the First, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United S^a^-o, MRS7 JOSEPHILIE WILLIAMS, Tcnanc Sv;orn to and subscribed before me,( this day of December, 1966. NOTARY PUULIC Lj-q • y .rn i > v \ o JH THE CIVIL COURT OF FULTON COUNTY * GEORGIA HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA, Landlord, "VG" JOSEPHINE WILLIAMS, Tenant. X X X X X X CASE NO. 35154 DIS.POSSESSORY PROCEEDINGS PAUPER*S AFFIDAVIT GEORGIA, FULTON COUNTY: Personally appeared before the undersigned authority, JOSEPHINE WILLIAMS, movant, who an oath saud she is junable from her poverty to give bond secured! by real property or cash collateral othersioe required, and aSho is advised by counsel that she has good cause for legal redress. JOsEPII Li J E WILLI AMS iSubscribed and sworn to before me, this day of December, 1966 NOTARY PUBLIC ■S'a' )„ v ■ / IK THE CIVIL COURT OF PULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE X • CITY OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA, l Landlord, X CASH M 0 . 35154 -V3" X DISPOSSL5S0RY PR0CEF.DIMGS JOSEPHINE WILLIAMS, a/k/a X JOSIEPHIHE WILLIAMS, X Tenant. _x AMENDMENT TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED WITHOUT TENDERING BOND WITH GOOD SECURITY._______ Cone 3' new, JOSEPHINE A. MS , n/k/n oO SIK P i 11.1L WXLLIAbS, tenant in the above-styled dispossensory proceedings, and ancnd3 her previously filed motion for an order placing said case upon the Calendar of this Court for plenary trial or such other proceedings as nay be jr.eet and proper* upon the basis of her previously filed counter-affidavit, and pauper’s affidavit which is attached thereto, without the necessity of tendering, bond with good security. The tenant amendr her motion as follows: 1. The tenant strikes paragraph 2 of the motion in its entirety and substitutes the following to bo known as paragraph 2 : ft ̂€• The Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta is a public body corporate and politic created pursuant to t h e . provisions of the “Housing Authority•n Lav” (Acts 1337, ??. 210, 2 1 1, as amended) and is enpovsred to effectuate the purposes of the said statutes and other applicable state and federal statute Those powers include the power to acquire property by eminent do.uain or otherwise, in slum or blighted areas which are detrimental to the health, safety, morals and welfare of the (oQ " — • JW; • • community, and to carry out alum clearance and urban redevelop ment projects, including the erection, management, and leasing of dwelling places to "families of low income," v;ithin the boundaries of the City of Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia* iO carry out the -previously stated purposes, the Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta receives financial and other assistance from the Government of the United States or America. • ' V ■ I . . .. 2. The tenant strikes paragraph 3 of her notion in its entirety and substitutes therefor the following to be known as paragraph 3: . "3. ins Williams / a/:k/n Josie- minor <childron. Frora > inclu;5c Deccro.be r 21, 1966, 41 an 1hour fro:a Project Up- ■ ty At 1rnta, Inc., which in food and home management five days a week for five hours a day. Duo to termination ox Project Up«lift because of reductions in the national appropria tions to the Office of Economic Opportunity, movant is now un employed. Movant does not have any stocks, bonds, or real property or friends and relatives possessed or the same with waicn to give security for tho bond required by Section 303, 61 Ga. Code Ann." 3. The tenant amends her previously filed notion by striking paragraph 6 thereof, in its entirety and substituting the following to be known’as paragraph G: "6 That, although Movant tendered her rent to the landlord on December 1, 1066 as required by the terns of her lease, the landlord, on December 6 , 1066, instituted disposoossexy - 2 - 1CL- O proceedings in this Court. On information and belief, xuovant avers that the cause or pretextof the commencement of.dispossess- ory proceedings are the unfounded suspicions of the Project Manager, .Mr. A. F. Smith, that the tenant has or had a man in the house, as the same £ire made to more fully appear by the deposition of the said A. F. Smith on file in this Court which is incorporated in its entirety as Exhibit "A" to this motion and made a part hereof by express reference." 4. The tenant amends her previously filed motion by adding the following paragraph thereto, to be known as paragraph 7" "7 . Movant avers that regardless of whether her I eviction is with or without cause, that she!has not been given a hearing and specifications of the charges,, although she has demanded and requested the same in writing, as the same is made /' to more fully appear by SxhJLbit_JL5— attached--the- af fidavit of A. F. Smith on file in this Court." 5. Movant amends her previously filed motion by adding thereto the following to be known as paragraph 0: "8 '[ ! On information and belief, movant avers that I dispossessory oroceedings which are now ponding against her in . . this Court were instituted in whole or in part for the purposeV" • i or purposes of depriving her of rights, privileges, and immunities secured under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States by reason of her expression of sympathy for 6: an extension of help to other tenants in the housing project who have been threatened with summary eviction, as the same is made to more fully appear by Exhibit 14 attached to the deposition of A. F. Smith now of file in this Court." -3- - Sd- G. The tenant amends her previously motion by adding the following to be known as paragraph 9 - "3 Kovanfc herewith tenders the rent for the month of January, 1967 and offers to pay the same into tho Registry of this Court as it become3 duo until the termination of these proceedings.* WHEREFORE, the tenant prays that this her amendment |be allowed and ordered filed and made a part of hor motion. HOWARD KOORE, ”JR,~ ” 059 1/2 Hunter St., H. VJ. Atlanta, Georgia 30314 ATTORNEY FOR MOVANT. - A Cf(\ •r •JST" t I A ) II0U3IMG AUT170a m of XUS c m OF ATLASTA, GEOTGI A VS J03EPHI IE V.i XLLIAMS, a /k /a Ju3 i.*r«T*r ■■?IMS 111LLIAM3 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) E9. 35154 CIVIL COURT OR FOLTOU COURT;? ORDER OR MOTXO^ FOR SUMMARY 'JUDZIZM KOTIO?] TO PROCEED UXTROUT •TESDSRSS&. BOM Tho within case caning on regularly for heerxng berore ns on plaintiff* s Motion For Summary Judgment filed January 20, 1967, and defendant* a Motion For Leave To Proceed Without Tondorxug aond With Good Security filed December 9, 1966, and after hearing ai. ̂ is^Cxit ar.d considering the pleadings and the affidavits filed on behalf o~ .. both plaintiff and defendant, it is ordered that: I ' (1) The Motion For Susniary judgment be, and the same is hereby granted. (2) The prayers of the Motion To Proceed Without Tendering Bond With Good Security are denied. (3) The Marshal of this court proceed to execute Dispossess Warrant filed herein according to lax?. This February 28, 1967. / ) ' ' ' y t f. y"-'v.’. v /VM j m ^ ' “civil ' c d o ^ i )C<k- S .x^weaacsiT .KG AUTiIOHIT? 07 TilS 07 ATLAETA, <GEORGIA VS JOSEPillMS IJILLSASIS# A/LC/A JOSIEPIIIKE WILLIAMS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) KO. 35154 OFDE?l OM K9T7.Q3 FOR CIJ%& c l r ^ F AiiD i :ola> rekts The vjithl•i l ior,ion came o< a cash!ers ch<3cU d?:are o:a b» ^ .T 4- -j i in the amount of $100.00 V73o Goode v?ac ref'used s and afiter hearlog arg Motion be 3 and the name io hereby Thi.0 Febr • ruary 2o, 19 o 7. itiseno Trust Company of Georgia it is ordered Ghat t-os 1 / / c--< j u S ^ f c l ^ j / •> -- — I (a - ! * * ' ' IN THE CIVIL COURT OF FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA, Landlord, JOSEPHINE WILLIAMS, a/k/a J05IEPHIUE WILLIAMS, Tenant. IS \ l C E E CASE NO. 35151} NOT!C£ OF APPEAL i ■ Notice is hereby given that Josephine VJillisns * n/k/a Jo aic phi no '.’illian?.s, the tenant above to the Suprcrse Court of Georgia fro-n Court, entered o n __ Z f F Z ctny ̂ ___S' 1S67, denying the tenant's notion for leave to proceed without tendering a bond with good security, diorsisoing tenant’s affidavit that her lease has not expired, allowing the land lord’s motion’ for summary judgment, and ordering that the warrant to dispossess the tenant be returned to tno harshal v, directions that the tenant be evicted forthwith. The tenant designates the entire record for inclusion in the record on appeal. This C) x-{ day of 1307. l l0Vu'.V-D i 0.*»L t J* • ♦ r - O '' -*V *30.V.4ZCO 1/2 Hunter St. , _•» Atlanta, Georgia ATTORNEY FOR TENANT 11 T *5 ■> * />4 .•. - gm: v» . rr,» >*; T*" • ^ .• rsy/7 »•< r: ■ -v • ,'V*1r — .•'r‘% w-* 1 IH THE CIVIL COURT OF FULTOU CO’JMTY, GEORGIA HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA, Landlord, -V3- JOSLRHINE WILLIAMS, a/kA JOSIEPHINE WILLIAMS, Tenant. 5 8 6 C 8 8 e c CASS NO. 3S15U MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL The tenant in the above-styled case, r.ovas the Court for an ox1 cl or staying the execution of its judgment directing the Marshal to evict the tenant fron her apartment at It S3 Drew. Place, N. VS, Atlanta, Georgia, pending the tenant’s appeal to the Supreme Court of Georgia, and review by the Supremo Court of the United States, if necessary. The tenant has filed with the Clerk of the Court a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of Georgia and an affidavit stating that because of her poverty she is tunable to pay costs or give security otherwise required. Accordingly, the tenant is entitled to a. stay as of right. Ga. Code. Ann. £-1003. The application of Oc. Code Arm. G1-3C3, requiring tenant who is indigent to post a bond with good security- as a pro- t condition to making a defense, deprives the tenant of her right to clue process and equal protection of the laws, liovey v. Elliott, 167 U. S. 139 and Griffin v. Illinois, 331 U. S. 12. m - -■ " ' 4 The tenant should stay In possession pending the orderly disposition of her substantial constitutional claims. Furthermore, a stay will avoid irreparable damage to the. tenant who has resided in public housing for five years because she is unable to afford safe and sanitary private housing, public housing units have been constructed in Atlanta because the Georgia Legislature has found "that there exists in the State unsanitary or unsafe duelling accommodations and that persons of low income are forced to reside in such unsanitary or unsafe accommodations. • . ." Ga. Code Ann., Sec. . 100.. Unless a stay of the judgment is granted, the tenant will be irrevocably and irreparably injured during the pendency of the appeal. If a stay is granted, on the other hand, the landlord will not suffer any damages. The tenant stands ready to pay all rents to the landlord as they fall due and to deposit these rent in court if the landlord refuses to accept them. WHEREFORE, the tenant moves that the judgment, of the Court be stayed pending all appeals. liOTAED MOORE, JR. 855 x/2 Hunter St., H. W. Atlanta, Georgia 3031H ATTORNEY FOR TENANT - 2 - / IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA JOSEPHINE WILLIAMS, a/k/a JOSIEPHINE WILLIAMS, Appellant, V3 i HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA, Appellee. 5 8 C I fi 8 5 DOCKET NO. TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA: ■/ | Appellant, JOSEPHINE WILLIAMS r a/k/snvOSXSPHINE- WILLIAMS , prayG that an order be entered staying the execution of the judgment of the Civil Court of Fulton County, Georgia ordering her evicted pending appeal to this Honorable Court. 1. Appellant is an indigent tenant residing in a housing project, under the. control of the Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta, a public body created pursuant to the Housing Authority laws, Georgia Code Annotated, Section 99-1002 and financed by the United States pursuant to H2 United States Code, Section lb01-35. Appellant has been a tenant of the Housing Authority for approximately four (‘O years and has occupied her present apartment for seven (7) months. On November 1, 1966, the Housing Manager of.Perry Hones, an employee of the Housing Authority, informed the appellant by letter that the Housing Authority was terminating the loe-.sc by _ /\ a ~* I giving her thirty days' notice. The Housing Manage* did not inform the appellant of the reasons fox" the termination, it is the. position of the Housing Authority that it is under no obligation to inform the tenant of the reasons for the tormina- tion of her leans or to provide a hearing. 2. On December 3., 19GC, the• appellant, tend„x-d the rent due to the Housing Authority, but. the rent was not accepted and the demand that the appellant vacate the promises was renewed. On or about December 6, 1965, the Housing Authority commenced proceedings to obtain a dispossessory warrant. The appellant responded with an affidavit that her term - of rent had not expired and an eviction would deprive her of her constitutional rights. The. adpollmrt also moved fox- leave to proceed without tendering bond with good security, and swore, by affidavit, that she was -unable to give the bond roo xiirs d by st atutc« 3. The Landlord-Tenant Law provides that a ter.ana may arrest dispossessory proceedings by tendering a bond with good security, Ga. Code Ann., Sec. 303-30., and that if the issue is determined against the tenant judgment shall be for double the rent/reserved. Ga. Code Ann., Sec. 305. Agencies in this State have advised that it is -necessary for iWlJlt to put up cash collateral for-double the rent received in paying unrecoverable bond J>raaiiumO. 4. It is a p p e l l a n t ’ s contention that the decision of the Civil Court of Fulton County denies her rights to du_ process and equal protection of the l~us. Unless appellant as able to obtain a stay from the Justice's of this Court to re view the important questions of federal constitutional law ? - - /G?a ». • jftr ! presented in this case, the matter will become moot. Xn the interest of orderly judicial administration and the avoidance, of irreparable injury to the appellant, the eviction order below Should be stayed pending the final disposition of•constitutional issues involved. 5. A hearing was held on February 23, 19G7 on tenant's notions for leave to proceed without posting bond with good security and for an order directing the Clerk of the Civil Court of Fulton County to receive and hold in the registry of the Court any past and future rents to become due the landlord and upon appellee’s notion for summary judgment'and oral notion- to dismiss, fhe Court overruled each of the appellant’s motions and allowed those of the landlord. Appellant then filed a notice of appeal and motion for stay. The Court below sot the motion for stay iovm for hearing on Wednesday, March 8, 1387 at 2:00 in the after- ,oon> Because of the limited jurisdiction of the Court below and the want of solid authority sanctioning allowance of the _ „ _ tMnt "the Court bolo-»notion for stay, appellant reasonably ,-n. u tnac jill deny her motion thereby causing hv.r j.mju.diate eviction questions presented are subatantial. The Supreme Court of the Jnited States has already allowed a writ of certiorari on the Issue whether a tenant such as appellant is entitles to a hearing n r o _ e ^ ^ J j o y g s i _ n g _ j ^ u t ^ j p 1 October Term, I960, Ho. 712. On the question of whether the bond re tirements of Sections 303-304, 81 Ca. Code Ann., violate ch. federal constitution in these circumstances, three Justices of the Supreme Court have expressed their view that the consti tutionality of Section 303 is so doubtful and substantial that sortiornri should be granted. Williams v. Snafxer, Oc.onor i rerm, 3.3GO t No. 324. WHEREFORE, appellant prays this honorable Court for assume • - 3 - - m • ....,.•» i j \ of an order staying her eviction until the natter can be docketo in this Court and heard in the regular tern. i . ^JJaiuani Ifltfoore, (/>'• “ HOWARD iiOORE, jX. f>59 1/2 Hunter St., N.W Atlanta, Georgia 3031H ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT r K •'•" - V : 4 m - r»*v« rtS ^ ̂ -jSUMUMU w *k*«*-r w> u 0__R D E R The above end foregoing Motion for’ Stay coming on to be heard, it is hereby allowed and the eviction is stayed, pending further order of this Court in the promises. This day of _» 1?C7. THIEF JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the above and foregoing Motion for Stay upon R« Byron Xttmdge, L*><1 < Ring and Spalding, U34 Trust Company of Georgia Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, attorney of record for the landlord, by [depositing a copy of the same in a properly stamped envelope, I ° ̂ Iin the United States Mail, addressed as above. This day of , 1C 0 7 . y ffo w a /i M oore, J>'- HOWARD MOORS, JR. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ■*—* «T-TW'' y* ■ - ■ m ' AFFIDAVIT STATE OF GEORGIA: . COUNTY OF FULTON: Personally appeared before the undersigned, an officer duly authorized to administer oaths, HOWARD MOORE, JR., being first duly sworn, who deposes and says under oath that the following statements are true and are based upon his personal knowledge: This affidavit is given for use in connection with the tenant’s motion for stay of execution of judgment directed to Mr. Justice Black, Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States for the Fifth Circuit. | I am counsel of record for Josephine Williams a/k/a Josiephine Williams, and I have represented her throughout the proceedings in the Civil Court of Fulton Lounty. On March 1, 1967, I prepared and presented to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Georgia and the Chief Justice there of a motion to stay execution of the judgment of the Civil Court of Fulton County entered February 28, 1967, rendering judgment fox the Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta, Georgia by granting the landlord’s motion for summary judgment, denying the prayers of tenant’s motion to proceed without tendering bond with good seen rity, and directing the Marshal to proceed to execute the dis possesses warrant according to law. The Clerk, Mr. Henry Cobb I „ -po a — f * ' ‘ informed me that under the Rules of Court that I could not lodge and file the motion because the appeal had not been transmitted from the Civil Court of Fulton County and docketed in the Georgia Supreme Court. I then presented the motion to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Georgia, in chambers, and he informed me that the Rules of Court were unvarying and completely barred the Georgia Supreme Court from entertaining the motion and granting the requested stay prior to the actual docketing of the appeal in the Office of the Clerk. I am informed by the Clerk of the Civil Court of Fulton County, charged with the duties of preparing, certifying, an transmitting records in cases appealed from that Court, that the record in this case will not be ready for transmission to the Georgia Supreme Court for another ten or fifteen days. HOWARD MOORE, JR. Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 3rd. day of March, 1967. /UCaJfrLNOTARY PUBL My commission expires June 24, 1969. V/4' - 2 - I ) Chief Justice W. H. Duckworth | of the Georgia Supreme Court ^Thursday expressed doubt that the state’s highest court would stay the execution of an evic tion warrant against two ten ants in the Vine City area of Atlanta until another aspect of the case could be appealed. The case involves the slum war now under way in the Mark ham Street area of the city. The jurist said that such a re quest could not be considered by the Supreme Court until the ap peal on the other question had been filed. Then, Justice Duck worth said, the granting of the request would depend upon the possible merits of the main case and upon whether it would be come moot without the stay order. Mr. Moore has contended that the case would become moot if ths men were evicted. Judge Luther Alvcrson Wed nesday denied a request in Ful ton Superior Court that he stay the execution of the eviction warrant while the constitutional question is appealed. The judge did instruct the sheriff not to evict Sam Martin and Willie Williams from their apartments until further instructions from him Friday. This was to give Mr. Moore time’to appeal his denial with out having the men put out of their apartments. In a hearing Tuesday, Judge Alvcrson overruled Mr. Moore’s constitutional attack upon the state law which requires that a security bond be posted when a tenant wishes to contest an eviction notice. Mr. Moore argued i that the bond requirements were impos sible for poverty stricken people to meet. Therefore, he. said, this requirement denied them equal access to the courts ami thereby equal protection of the laws. At the conclusion of Wednes day’s hearing Mr. Moore said he planned an appeal to the Geor gia Supreme Court arid to the U.S. Supreme Court if neces sary. He said the federal ques tion involved v'as the violation of the equal protection clause cf the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The landlord of the two ten ants, Joseph N. Shaffer, has ob tained warrants to have them evicted for nonpayment of rent. Mr. Moore sought an injunction that would have prohibited the eviction of the two men.. Judge Alvcrson denied the in junction and in so doing over ruled Mr. Moore’s constitution al attack upon the boevd provi sions of the law. Mr. Moore then asked for an order staying the execution of the eviction warrant mntil he could appeal the constitutional question to the Supreme Court. Judge Alvcrson overrated this motion saying that a stay order would have the same effect as an injunction. After this, Mr. Moore request ed that the judge ask the sheriff to not serve the warrant until Friday to give him time to ap peal the decision on the stay or der which could be appealed and argued much more quickly than tiie appeal on the constitutional question. Judge Alvcrson agreed to this. ATLANTA JOURNAL, MARCH 3, 1966, p. 19 • Five Star Edition EXHIBIT "A" TO AFFIDAVIT OF HOWARD MOORE, JR. -y