Singleton v. State

• Decision Date: 30 June 1906
• Citation: 149 Ala. 673,42 So. 23,144 Ala. 104
• Parties: SINGLETON v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

42 So. 23

144 Ala. 104, 149 Ala. 673

SINGLETON v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 30, 1906

Appeal from Probate Court, Pike County; A. C. Edmondson, Judge.

"Not officially reported."

Habeas Corpus proceedings by Singleton. From an adverse judgment and order, he appeals. Affirmed.

The appellant was arrested in Pike county upon a warrant issued by the Governor of of this state on requisition of the Governor of Florida, charging that the appellant was a fugitive from justice from the state of Florida, having been duly charged with the commission of the crime of embezzlement in the state of Florida.

Massey Wilson, Atty. Gen., for the State.

ANDERSON J.

"It may be considered as settled law that a prima facie case that the prisoner is legally held is made out when the return to the writ of habeas corpus shows: (1) A demand or requisition for the prisoner made by the executive of another state, from which he is alleged to have fled; (2) a copy of the indictment found or affidavit made before a magistrate charging the alleged fugitive with the commission of crime certified as authentic by the executive of the state making the demand; (3) the warrant of the Governor authorizing the arrest. When these facts are made to appear by papers regular on their face, there is a weight of authority holding that the prisoner is prima facie under legal restraint." Barriere v. State (Ala.) 39 So. 55; In re Mohr, 73 Ala. 503, 49 Am. Rep. 63. The sheriff's return in the case at bar shows the warrant of the Governor of this state and an affidavit charging the prisoner with a crime, but does not set out the requisition of the executive of the state of Florida. The warrant of the Governor of this state, however, recites that the demand was made, and other jurisdictional facts. While there seems to be conflict of opinion upon the proposition, many cases hold that the warrant of the Governor reciting these jurisdictional facts is in itself prima facie sufficient to show that all necessary prerequisites have been complied with prior to its issue by him, and we are disposed to adopt this as a correct rule. Davis Case, 122 Mass. 324; Kingsbury's Case, 106 Mass. 223; Robinson v. Flanders, 29 Ind. 10; Hartman v. Aveline, 63 Ind. 344, 30 Am. Rep. 217. Although the return makes out a prima facie case, the defendant is permitted to show that the process is void, or that he is not a fugitive; but he cannot require the courts...