McIntyre v. Mote (Ex parte McIntyre)

• Decision Date: 10 November 1906
• Citation: 77 Neb. 418,109 N.W. 763
• Parties: EX PARTE MCINTYRE. MCINTYRE v. MOTE, SHERIFF.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

77 Neb. 418

109 N.W. 763

EX PARTE MCINTYRE.MCINTYRE

v.MOTE, SHERIFF.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Nov. 10, 1906.

Syllabus by the Court.

Under the practice of this court, where the record contains no bill of exceptions and the pleadings are sufficient to support the judgment of the trial court, it will be affirmed.

Error to District Court, Dawes County; Westover, Judge.

In the application of Philip McIntyre for a writ of habeas corpus to L. K. Mote, sheriff. From an order refusing to discharge petitioner, McIntyre brings error. Affirmed.Philip McIntyre, pro se.

Norris Brown, Atty. Gen., W. T. Thompson, Deputy Atty. Gen., and J. B. Strode, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

LETTON, J.

This is a proceeding in error to review a judgment of the district court of Dawes county refusing to discharge the petitioner, Philip McIntyre, upon a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner alleges that he was not convicted of any crime or offense and that he is illegally deprived of his liberty, having been brought from the state of Virginia into this state without any demanding writ from the Governor of Nebraska or rendition writ of the Governor of Virginia, contrary to the laws and Constitution of the United States, and of the state of Nebraska. He prays that he may be discharged from such illegal custody, and not molested until he has had time to return to the state of Virginia. At the hearing, the district court found in favor of the regularity and sufficiency of the proceedings and writ whereunder the petitioner was held, denied his petition, and remanded him to the custody of the jailer to await trial upon the information pending against him. No bill of exceptions was preserved, and no motion for a new trial filed. Under the practice of this court, where the record contains no bill of exceptions and the pleadings are sufficient to support the judgment of the trial court, it will be affirmed.

The petition in error and the brief of the petitioner are couched in somewhat rambling and confused language, and it is difficult to see what particular point the petitioner seeks to raise thereby. Nevertheless, and though not required to do so, we have examined the return of the sheriff to the writ which sets forth the proceedings under which the petitioner was arrested, and is detained. It appears that on April 26, 1905, Allen G. Fisher filed his complaint against the petitioner in the district court of Dawes county, in substance charging the petitioner with forging a...