Pool v. State
| Citation | 16 Ala.App. 410,78 So. 407 |
| Decision Date | 09 April 1918 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 304 |
| Parties | POOL v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Wm. E. Fort, Judge.
Habeas corpus by B.E. Pool against the State of Alabama. Motion to quash the return was overruled, and petitioner appeals. Affirmed.
Allen Bell & Sadler, of Birmingham, for appellant.
F. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., and David W.W. Fuller, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
The warrant issued by the Governor of this state on the requisition of the Governor of the state of Oklahoma is attached to and made a part of the return to the writ of habeas corpus, and recites that:
"Whereas, his excellency, R.L. Williams, Governor of the state of Oklahoma, by requisition dated the 16th day of October, 1916, has demanded of me, as Governor of the state of Alabama, the surrender of B.E. Pool, who, it appears, is charged by affidavit, in the county of Washita in said state with the crime of obtaining money by bogus check (a duly certified copy of which affidavit accompanies said requisition) and it appearing that said B.E. Pool has fled from justice in said state and taken refuge in the state of Alabama," etc.
These are the jurisdictional facts which the law required the Governor to find before issuing the warrant, and to this end it was within the province of the Governor to require the production of satisfactory evidence of the existence of these facts. This being a matter of official duty, the presumption will be indulged, in the absence of countervailing evidence that this duty was performed, and the recitals in the warrant are prima facie evidence of these facts. Jones on Ev. § 45; Roberts v. Reilly, 116 U.S. 80, 6 Sup.Ct. 291, 29 L.Ed. 544; Hyatt v. State, 188 U.S. 691, 23 Sup.Ct. 456, 47 L.Ed. 657; In re Kingsbury, 106 Mass. 223; People v. Police Com., 100 A.D. 483, 91 N.Y.Supp. 760; Gillis v. Leekley, 38 Wash. 156, 80 P. 300; Farrell v. Hawley, 112 Am.St.Rep. p. 141 (note); 11 R.C.L. p. 732, § 25, p. 749, § 45.
Treating the recitals of the warrant as prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated, the return was sufficient, and the motion to quash was properly overruled. Barriere v. State, 142 Ala. 78, 39 So. 55; Compton v. State, 152 Ala. 68, 44 So. 685.
Moreover, it appears from the recitals in the order of the trial judge that the motion to quash the return was submitted along with evidence, and in the absence of a bill of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rayburn v. State, 3 Div. 894
...585, 143 So.2d 187, cert. denied, 273 Ala. 705, 143 So.2d 190 (1962); State v. Smith, 32 Ala.App. 651, 29 So.2d 438 (1947); Pool v. State, 16 Ala.App. 410, 78 So. 407, cert. denied, 202 Ala. 13, 79 So. 311 (1918). Without a showing to the contrary the courts must presume that the governor a......
-
State v. Parrish
... ... of another State for the arrest of a fugitive from justice is ... held to be prima facie evidence of such fact. Ex parte ... Thacker, 212 Ala. 3, 101 So. 638; Thacker v. State, ... 20 Ala.App. 302, 101 So. 636; Singleton v. State, ... 144 Ala. 104, 42 So. 23; Pool v. State, 16 Ala.App ... 410, 78 So. 407 ... [5 So.2d 835.] ... In the ... Singleton case, 144 Ala. 104, 42 So. 23, it is settled that a ... prima facie case that the prisoner is legally held is made ... out when the return to the writ of habeas corpus shows a due ... demand ... ...
-
Emmons v. State
...585, 143 So.2d 187, cert. denied, 273 Ala. 705, 143 So.2d 190 (1962); State v. Smith, 32 Ala.App. 651, 29 So.2d 438 (1947); Pool v. State, 16 Ala.App. 410, 78 So. 407, cert. denied, 202 Ala. 13, 79 So. 311 (1918). Without a showing to the contrary the courts must presume that the governor a......
-
Morrison v. State
...facie authority for the prisoner's detention. Code 1940, Title 15, §§ 52, 54; Kelley v. State, 30 Ala.App. 21, 200 So. 115; Pool v. State, 16 Ala.App. 410, 78 So. 407. While a technical construction might denounce the warrant as deficient in not stating that the affidavit was 'made before a......