Compton v. State

• Citation: 152 Ala. 68,44 So. 685
• Parties: COMPTON v. STATE.
• Decision Date: 02 July 1907
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

44 So. 685

152 Ala. 68

COMPTON v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

July 2, 1907

Appeal from City Court of Montgomery; W. H. Thomas, Judge.

Habeas corpus on petition of J. D. Compton. From an order denying the writ, and remanding petitioner to the custody of the extradition agent of the state of Georgia, he appeals. Affirmed.

J. M Chilton and Hill, Hill & Whiting, for appellant.

Alexander M. Garber, Tye & Bryan, and Steiner, Crum & Weil, for the State.

HARALSON J.

Section 1821 of the Code of 1896 provides that "any public or private statutes, or the proceedings of any legislative body purporting on the face of the book to be printed by authority of the government, or state, or territory, are evidence without further proof."

The state introduced certain sections of the Code of the state of Georgia, as contained in a book, on the first page of which appeared the words: "The Code of the State of Georgia adopted December 15th, 1895. Prepared by John L. Hopkins, Clifford Anderson, and Joseph R. Lamar. Vol. III. Atlanta, Georgia: The Foot & Davies Company, Printers & Binders, 1896." On the opposite page were the words: "Entered according to the Act of Congress, in 1896, by the State of Georgia, in the office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington."

In Clanton v. Barnes, 50 Ala. 261, it was held that: "The Revised Code of Mississippi, purporting on its face to have been published by the authority of the Legislature, is competent evidence to prove the statutes therein contained."

In Bradley v. Bank, 60 Ala. 253, the same principle is announced; and in Bush v. Garner, 73 Ala. 163, it was held, again, that the statutes of another state may be proved "by a printed volume purporting on its face to have been printed by authority of such state." Falls v. U.S. S. L. & B. Co., 97 Ala. 417, 13 So. 25, 24 L. R. A. 174, 38 Am. St. Rep. 194; Hawes v. State, 88 Ala. 71, 7 So. 302. The same is true of the act establishing the criminal court of Atlanta.

The Code of Georgia of 1895 was sufficiently proved to authorize the introduction of its sections offered in evidence. Moreover, the defendant virtually admitted the authenticity of the volume, by introducing, himself, a portion of it (section 832).

Section 11 of the act establishing the criminal court of Atlanta introduced in evidence, provides that criminal proceedings in said court may be instituted by written information or accusation, setting forth the offense charged, containing the name of the prosecutor, and signed by the Solicitor General, and founded on affidavit, and the judge of said court may, upon affidavit being made that a crime has been committed, issue his warrant for the arrest of said party. Laws Ga. 1890-91, p. 937.

Section 658 of the Criminal Code of 1895, introduced by the state, defines the crime of "fraudulently obtaining credit," and provides, among other things, that if any one by falsely representing his pecuniary responsibility, "shall obtain credit and thereby fraudulently get into possession of goods or other valuable thing, [he] shall be deemed a cheat and swindler, and shall be punished as for a misdemeanor, and shall be compelled by the sentence of the court to restore to the party injured, the property so fraudulently obtained, if it can be done."

Section 884 of the Code prescribes the form of affidavit to be made (a substantial compliance with which, it is stated, will be sufficient), as follows: "Georgia, ______ County. Personally came A. B., who on oath saith that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, C. B. did, on the ______ day of ______, in the year ______, in the county aforesaid, commit the offense of ______, and this deponent makes this affidavit that a warrant may issue for his arrest. A. B. Sworn to and subscribed before me this the ______ day of ______. ______, J. P."

On the 28th of January, 1907, J. W. Patterson made an affidavit before W. W. Troy, a notary public of Fulton county, Ga., which was headed, "State of Georgia, Fulton County," reciting: "Came in person before me, [the notary public], J. W. Patterson, who being duly sworn on oath says that, from the best of his knowledge and belief, J. D. Compton is guilty of the offense of misdemeanor in this: [Here follows a detailed statement of the facts, not stated on information and belief, but as facts which constituted the offense of falsely and fraudulently obtaining the possession of the property, of the value of $3,750, contrary to law, and the same is sworn to, not on information and belief, but as being true.]" This affidavit was filed with the clerk of the criminal court, and so certified by him.

It will be seen that the affiant swore, "from the best of his knowledge and belief, [that] said J. D. Compton is guilty of the offense of a misdemeanor in this," and that the facts constituting the misdemeanor are not stated on information and belief, but as being true. To make the affidavit good, he was not required to swear that the accused was guilty of crime, but to state that he was guilty according to his knowledge and belief, stating the facts on which such knowledge and belief were founded. These were entirely sufficient on which to base the issuance of a warrant of arrest.

Armed with this accusation, the solicitor of the criminal court, on the 28th of January, 1907, addressed a communication to the Governor of the state of Georgia, signed by him in his official capacity, reciting that: "At the January term 1907, J. W. Patterson swore out an accusation against J. D. Compton for the offense of being a common cheat and swindler. The said J. D. Compton has fled to the state of Alabama, where he is now a fugitive from justice. I therefore respectfully ask that your excellency will grant a requisition on the...