Williams v. Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta Application for Stay of Execution

    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