Ex parte Forbes

• Decision Date: 03 February 1920
• Docket Number: 7 Div. 645
• Parties: Ex parte FORBES.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

85 So. 590

17 Ala.App. 405

Ex parte FORBES.

7 Div. 645

Court of Appeals of Alabama

February 3, 1920

Rehearing Denied April 6, 1920

Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; Hugh D. Merrill, Judge.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Wesley Forbes. From judgment denying the writ, petitioner appeals. Affirmed.

Certiorari denied 85 So. 921.

Harvey A. Emerson, of Anniston, for appellant.

J.Q Smith, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

SAMFORD J.

The appellant was arrested in Calhoun county, Ala., on the 26th day of July, 1919, by the sheriff on the warrant of the Governor of Alabama, issued on the 25th day of July, 1919, in compliance with the requisition of the governor of the state of Michigan, charging the petitioner with being a fugitive from justice from the state of Michigan. The petitioner on the same day filed his petition addressed to Hon. Hugh D Merrill, judge of the circuit court of Calhoun county, Ala praying the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directed to the sheriff of Calhoun county, and commanding the sheriff to have the body of the petitioner before the said judge together with the cause of his detention. The writ was issued on July 26, 1919. The petition for said writ contained a prayer for the discharge of the petitioner, setting forth as grounds therefor the following: (1) That he was illegally and unlawfully restrained of his liberty, in that he was not a fugitive from justice; (2) that the court having issued the warrant and affidavit for his arrest was without jurisdiction to do so; (3) that the process under which he was held was void on account of the defects in the matter therein contained or in the substance thereof; (4) that said process was issued in this cause under circumstances not allowed by law; and (5) that he is not guilty of the offense charged against him in said process, and had committed no such offense in the state of Michigan.

[1] On the trial of this cause it was shown by the return, with testimony sufficient to establish the allegations therein made, that the executive authority of the state of Michigan had demanded the person of the petitioner as a fugitive from justice of the executive authority of the state of Alabama, to which petitioner is alleged to have fled, and there was produced a copy of an affidavit, made before a proper magistrate of the state of Michigan, charging the petitioner with having committed a felony, certified as authentic by the proper officials of the state of Michigan, and also, the warrant of the Governor of the state of Alabama, authorizing the arrest of petitioner and his delivery to the custody of the agent of the Governor of the state of Michigan. These papers were in all things regular, and thereby made out a prima facie case that the person was legally held. Godwin v. State, 16 Ala.App. 397, 78 So. 313; Mohr's Case, 73 Ala. 503, 49 Am.Rep. 63; Barriere v. State, 142 Ala. 72, 39 So. 55; Singleton v. State, 144 Ala. 104, 42 So. 23.

The petitioner does not deny that he is the identical...