Ex Parte Stanley

• Decision Date: 02 May 1888
• Parties: <I>Ex parte</I> STANLEY.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

8 S.W. 645

Ex parte STANLEY.

Court of Appeals of Texas.

May 2, 1888.

Appeal from district court, Bexar county; GEORGE H. NOONAN, Judge.

Teel & Haltom, for relator. Asst. Atty. Gen. Davidson, for the State.

WILLSON, J.

Appellant was arrested by virtue of the following warrant' issued by the governor of Texas, to-wit: "The State of Texas: To all and singular the sheriffs, constables, and other civil officers of the said state: Whereas, it has been made known to me by the governor of the state of California, that William H. M. Stanley and Bertha Stanley stand charged, by proper affidavit, before the proper authorities, with the crime of obtaining money under false pretenses, committed in said state, and that the said defendants have taken refuge in the state of Texas; and, whereas, the said governor, in pursuance of the constitution and laws of the United States, has demanded of me that I cause the said fugitives to be arrested and delivered to James W. Gillen and John Parrott, who are, as is satisfactorily shown, duly authorized to receive them into custody and convey them back to said state; and whereas, said demand is accompanied by a copy of said affidavit, duly certified as authentic: now, therefore, I, L. S. Ross, governor of the state of Texas, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the constitution and laws of this state, and of the United States, do issue this, my warrant, commanding all sheriffs, constables, and other civil officers of this state to arrest, and aid and assist in arresting, said fugitives, and deliver them, when arrested, to the said agents, in order that they may be taken back to the said state, to be dealt with for said crime. In testimony whereof," etc. Appellant applied to the Hon. GEORGE H. NOONAN, judge of the Thirty-Seventh judicial district, for the writ of habeas corpus, which was granted by said judge, and was heard by him in term-time, and appellant was remanded to the custody of respondent, the sheriff of Bexar county, who had arrested him by virtue of said warrant. From said judgment appellant prosecutes this appeal, and insists that he should be discharged upon the following grounds: (1) Because the warrant of arrest does not set out the pretended affidavit upon which the demand upon the governor of the state of California upon the governor of Texas is based. (2) The warrant of arrest does not state that it is based upon an affidavit, certified to be authentic by the governor of California. (3) The warrant of arrest does not show that applicant fled from the state of California, nor does it state that applicant has fled from the justice of the state of California. (4) The warrant of arrest does not state that the applicant has fled to the state of Texas, or has taken refuge in the state of Texas. (5) The warrant of arrest does not state or show that obtaining money under false pretenses is punishable by the laws of the state of California. We will dispose of these grounds in the order in which they are presented.

It is not essential to the validity of the warrant that it should set out in full or be accompanied by the indictment or affidavit upon which it is based. Nichols v. Cornelius, 7 Ind. 611; Robinson v. Flanders, 29 Ind. 10; People v. Pinkerton, 77 N. Y. 245; People v. Donohue, 84 N. Y. 438. In Ex parte Thornton, 9 Tex. 635, this question is referred to, and while the court did not decide it, it intimated that the indictment or affidavit should be set out in full in the warrant; citing Clark's Case, 9 Wend. 212, and Smith's Case, 3 McLean, 121. Upon examination of those cases, we do not understand either of them as supporting the view intimated by the court in Thornton's Case. Mr. Church, in his work on Habeas...