Ex parte Paulk
| Citation | 143 So. 585,225 Ala. 420 |
| Decision Date | 06 October 1932 |
| Docket Number | 3 Div. 25. |
| Parties | EX PARTE PAULK. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Certiorari to Court of Appeals.
Proceeding by O. C. Paulk for a writ of habeas corpus. On petition for a writ of certiorari to review and revise a judgment and decision of the Court of Appeals (143 So. 585) affirming an order of the Probate Court denying the writ.
Writ of certiorari denied.
Brassell & Brassell, of Montgomery, for petitioner.
Thos. E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., for the State.
The recital in the warrant issued by the Governor of Alabama that "His Excellency, L. G. Hardman, Governor of the State of Georgia, by requisition dated the 25th day of May, 1931, has demanded of me, as Governor of the State of Alabama, the surrender of O. C. Paulk who, it appears, is charged by indictment in the County of Calhoun, in said State, with the crime of forgery (a duly certified copy of which said indictment accompanies said requisition) and it appearing that said O. C. Paulk has fled from justice in said State and taken refuge in the State of Alabama," is prima facie evidence of the facts recited. Pool v. State, 16 Ala. App. 410, 78 So. 407.
From these recitals it appears that a requisition for the surrender of the petitioner has been made by the Governor of Georgia, that this demand was accompanied by a copy of the indictment duly authenticated, charging the petitioner with the offense of forgery, an offense at common law, which, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, is presumed to prevail in the state of Georgia. Donegan & Tabor v. Wood, 49 Ala. 242, 20 Am. Rep. 275; 12 R. C. L. 139, § 2.
This, with the presence of the Governor's warrant in evidence, was sufficient to warrant the petitioner's retention in custody for removal by the agent of the state of Georgia. Barriere v. State, 142 Ala. 72, 39 So. 55.
It was not permissible for the petitioner to inquire into the merits of the charge, or to show that he had been discharged by a court of another county in the state of Georgia. Barriere v. State, supra. Non constat, the court so discharging him had no jurisdiction. This is a matter to be adjudged in the courts of Georgia.
The writ of certiorari will therefore be denied.
Writ denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Outlaw, 4 Div. 150
...62 So. 704; Barksdale v. Strickland & Hazard, 220 Ala. 86, 124 So. 234; Ex parte Allan, 220 Ala. 482, 125 So. 612, dictum; Ex Parte Paulk, 225 Ala. 420, 143 So. 585. However, if such sister state did not have a common origin with this and older states, Peet v. Hatcher, 112 Ala. 514, 21 So. ......
-
State v. Parrish
... ... complement or enforce this federal constitutional provision ... and statute, and any inconsistency therewith is obviously ... void. Ex parte Roberts, 186 Wash. 13, 56 P.2d 703 ... It ... therefore follows that in all extradition cases the first ... question must be: Has the ... federal, to the effect that the person charged is prima facie ... under legal restraint. Ex parte Paulk, 225 Ala. 420, 143 So ... 585. To like effect is the holding in Barriere v ... State, 142 Ala. 72, 39 So. 55; Petition of Germain, 258 ... Mass ... ...
-
Morrison v. State
...denied, Ex parte Thacker, 212 Ala. 3, 101 So. 638; Gridley v. State, 23 Ala.App. 632, 121 So. 922; Kelley v. State, supra; Ex parte Paulk, 225 Ala. 420, 143 So. 585; A.L.R., supra. For other cases see Shepherd's Appellant advances two propositions as error to reverse the judgment dischargin......
-
Milton v. Summers
...62 So. 704; Barksdale v. Strickland & Hazard, 220 Ala. 86, 124 So. 234; Ex parte Allan, 220 Ala. 482, 125 So. 612, dictum; Ex parte Paulk, 225 Ala. 420, 143 So. 585. 'However, if such sister state did not have a common origin with this and older states, Peet v. Hatcher, 112 Ala. 514, 21 So.......