Gluff v. Rouls, 28540
| Decision Date | 30 March 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 28540,28540 |
| Parties | GLUFF v. ROULS et al. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
T. Ernest Maholm, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Robert L. Carrico, Indianapolis, George S. Dailey, Pros. Atty., Indianapolis, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a judgment denying relief in two causes for writs of habeas corpus which were consolidated for trial. No cross-errors were assigned. The complaints for the writs charged that appellant was restrained of his liberty by virtue of a warrant issued by the Governor of the State of Indiana upon an 'alleged requisition' from the Governor of Ohio charging that appellant was a fugitive from the State of Ohio, and that he was there charged with committing felonies by the issuance of fraudulent checks.
Many of the errors sought to be presented here have been waived by failure of appellant to present a good faith effort to comply with the rules of this court. At the time this appeal was perfected, Rule 2-17(g) provided that, Subsection (h) of the same rule provided, 'Errors assigned and not treated as herein directed shall be deemed to be waived.'
The section of the brief devoted to argument in many respects fails to comply with this rule, and about one-half of this part of the brief merely recites the history of the litigation without any 'discussion elaborating the propositions and points of law and authorities theretofore cited.'
Appellant's contention that the court erred in excluding evidence that the checks alleged to have been given in Ohio were postdated and were given by one partner to the other presents no cause for reversal. Appellant fails to argue the law of Ohio on these subjects, and these were matters of defense to be presented upon the trial of the cause in Ohio. Section 9-438, Burns 1942 Replacement, § 20 of Ch. 49 of the 1935 Acts--Uniform Criminal Extradition Act. Cook v. Rodger, Sheriff 1939, 215 Ind. 500, 20 N.E.2d 933; Taylor v. Smith, 1938, 213 Ind. 640, 13 N.E.2d 954.
Appellant's argument that he was deprived of various constitutional rights by the refusal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Burke
...him from going behind the proceedings pending against him in the demanding state. 12 In fact, this Court in Gluff v. Rouls, 1950, 228 Ind. 186, 188, 91 N.E.2d 176, 177, refused in an extradition case to permit the accused in habeas corpus to go behind the proceedings in the demanding state ......
-
State v. Booth
...upon him to overcome the presumption. People ex rel. Albert v. Commissioner of Correction, Sup., 111 N.Y.S.2d 307, 309; Gluff v. Rouls, 228 Ind. 186, 188, 91 N.E.2d 176; Annotation 81 A.L.R. 552, 563; 40 A.L.R.2d 1151, 1158. 22 Am.Jur., Extradition, Sec. 27, p. Both under the act and the Fe......
-
Elder v. Dowd
...motions for new trial when a party suffers an adverse decision. See Scott v. Scott, 1949, 227 Ind. 396, 86 N.E.2d 533; Gluff v. Rouls, 1950, 228 Ind. 186, 91 N.E.2d 176. In the latter case we held that alleged errors in the trial court on refusal to hear evidence must first be presented in ......
-
Sumner v. Lovellette, 169S23
...probable guilt or innocence has been properly excluded by this court on previous occasions. Gluff v. Rouls, Superintendent, Indianapolis Police Dept. (1950), 228 Ind. 186, 91 N.E.2d 176; Cook v. Rodger, Sheriff (1939), 215 Ind. 500, 20 N.E.2d In the instant case therefore, the issue is not ......