Hobbs v. State of Tennessee ex rel. State of Alabama, 8 Div. 211.

• Decision Date: 17 February 1942
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 211.
• Citation: 8 So.2d 595,30 Ala.App. 412
• Parties: HOBBS v. STATE OF TENNESSEE ex rel. STATE OF ALABAMA.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

8 So.2d 595

30 Ala.App. 412

HOBBS v. STATE OF TENNESSEE ex rel. STATE OF ALABAMA.

8 Div. 211.

Alabama Court of Appeals

February 17, 1942

Rehearing Denied March 17, 1942.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Limestone County; Seybourn H. Lynne Judge.

Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in Ex parte State (Hobbs v. State of Tennessee), 8 So.2d 596.

W W. Malone and W. W. Malone, Jr., both of Athens, for appellant.

Thos S. Lawson, Atty. Gen., and Jas. F. Matthews, Asst. Atty Gen., for appellee.

RICE Judge.

Appellant was arrested under a Governor's warrant issued by the Governor of Alabama on the requisition of the Governor of Tennessee, the said warrant reciting that appellant was "charged by affidavit & warrant (sic) in the county of Shelby in said State (Tennessee), with the crime of feloniously obtaining property by means of a bad check (a duly certified copy of which warrant & affidavit accompanies said requisition)."

He sued out a writ of habeas corpus seeking his discharge from the custody of the Sheriff of Limestone County, who made the arrest, and, from the judgment of the court remanding him to the custody of said Sheriff for the purpose of being delivered to the duly authorized agent of the State of Tennessee he brings this appeal.

So far as we can see the necessary facts, as outlined in the opinion in the case of State of Tennessee v. Hamilton, 28 Ala. App. 587, 190 So. 306, 308-said opinion being written for this court by the late loved and lamented Judge Wm. H. Samford-to constitute a prima facie case for holding appellant in custody as a fugitive from justice, were made to appear by the papers on file.

But here, as in the Hamilton case cited in the preceding paragraph, this fact does not preclude our "looking behind the prima facie case to see whether or not the warrant of the Governor was issued in a case not authorized by law."

And it is definitely the law of our State that "nothing in this chapter [the chapter dealing with Criminal Extradition] shall be construed as authorizing the extradition of any person in this state to any other state where the extradition proceedings, directly or indirectly, seek to aid in the collection of any debt, demand or claim against the party sought to be extradited." Code 1940, Title 15, § 68.

All that remains to be said is that the "bad check" mentioned in the Governor's warrant is shown in the testimony, without dispute, to be a check given...