King v. State, 1 Div. 640
| Decision Date | 15 January 1952 |
| Docket Number | 1 Div. 640 |
| Citation | 36 Ala.App. 368,56 So.2d 379 |
| Parties | KING et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Reuben F. McKinley, Jr., Bay Minette, for appellants.
Si Garrett, Atty. Gen., L. E. Barton, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Chas. C. Carlton, Montgomery, of counsel, for the State.
These three appellants have appealed from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Baldwin County denying their petition for release under habeas corpus proceedings.
It is inferable from the record that the matter arose out of a demand for extradition of the three appellants made by the Governor of Louisiana on charges of theft committed in that State.
The return filed by the Sheriff was completely insufficient. However no objection was filed and the appellant proceeded to trial on the merits. The State introduced as an exhibit a rendition warrant regular on its face as to each appellant issued by the Governor of Alabama. Such documentary evidence established a prima facie case for the State as to each appellant, and if not overcome would have justified the judgment entered. Ex parte Brown, 15 Ala.App. 210, 72 So. 772.
It was the contention of the appellants in the proceedings below that their extradition was sought merely for the purpose of aiding in the collection of a debt and therefore prohibited by the terms of Section 68, Title 15, Code of Alabama 1940.
To sustain this contention the appellants introduced evidence tending to show that they were members of a troupe of 'hell drivers' who travelled around putting on exhibitions of dare devil automobile driving, and that the alleged theft charges were based on transactions they had made with parties in Monroe, Louisiana, in connection with an exhibition there. They contracted for the purchase of gasoline, the printing of placards and tickets, etc., and gave what they termed I. O. U.'s for payment at the ticket office at the conclusion of their first performance. It rained on this day and they were unable to pay all of their creditors.
The appellants further introduced evidence tending to show that they went from Monroe, Louisiana, to Brewton, Alabama. In Brewton they were arrested and held under warrants which they claimed charged the same offenses as the warrants under which they are now held in Baldwin County.
However, they were told in Brewton that if they paid the amounts involved in the Louisiana warrants that the same would be withdrawn. The appellants contend that they did pay such sum to the Sheriff of Escambia County, Alabama, and were released.
There was introduced in evidence by the appellants receipts issued to the three appellants by the Sheriff of Escambia County, Alabama. Both receipts are dated 31 October 1951, and one is for the payment of $157.16, on which is noted 'For Sheriff Monroe Louisiana.' The other receipt is for $18.00, and is shown to be for 'Detainer's Fee.'
There was also received in evidence a copy of a telegram from the Sheriff of Ouachita Parish, Monroe, Louisiana, to the Sheriff of Escambia County, Alabama, which telegram is as follows:
'Sheriff Leo Mills
'Brewton, Alabama
'Bailey Grant, Sheriff.'
The appellants also introduced into evidence the following letter from the Sheriff of Ouachita Parish to the Sheriff of Escambia County:
'Nov. 2, 1951
'Sheriff J. L. Mills
'Escambia County
'Brewton, Alabama
'Dear Sheriff
'Thank you for your letter of October 31, 1951 wherein you enclosed check and warrants.
'At this time we want to express our appreciation for the cooperation you have given this department and this has been handled very...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Warner v. State
...In Hobbs as well as in Chatham v. State, 46 Ala.App. 729, 248 So.2d 768; Harris v. State, 38 Ala.App. 284, 82 So.2d 439; King v. State, 36 Ala.App. 368, 56 So.2d 379; Stubblefield v. State, 35 Ala.App. 419, 47 So.2d 662; and Scott v. State, 33 Ala.App. 328, 33 So.2d 390, it was held that th......
-
Smith v. State
...acted correctly in ignoring and disregarding the purported judicial record from the Georgia court. * * *.'But compare King v. State, 36 Ala.App. 368, 56 So.2d 379(2). ...
-
Chatham v. State, 1 Div. 126
...to have a broad application, to be liberally construed.' See also Stubblefield v. State, 35 Ala.App. 419, 47 So.2d 662; King v. State, 36 Ala.App. 368, 56 So.2d 379; and Harris v. State, 38 Ala.App. 284, 82 So.2d The judgment of the trial court is reversed and a judgment is here rendered di......
- Butler v. Walton, 8 Div. 630