State of Tennessee v. Hamilton, 8 Div. 861.
| Citation | 190 So. 306,28 Ala.App. 587 |
| Decision Date | 30 June 1939 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 861. |
| Parties | STATE OF TENNESSEE v. HAMILTON. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Limestone County; A. M. McConnell, Judge.
Petition of R. N. Hamilton for habeas corpus, resisted by the State of Tennessee. From an order discharging petitioner, the State of Tennessee appeals.
Affirmed.
Jas. H McCoy, Jr., of Athens, for appellee.
The petitioner, R. N. Hamilton, filed his petition addressed to the Hon. A. A. Griffith, Judge of the Circuit Court of Limestone County, Alabama, alleging, among other things, that he was illegally restrained of his liberty by the Sheriff of Limestone County and praying a writ of habeas corpus, and a discharge from the custody of said Sheriff. The answer was by J. W. Henry, agent for himself and on the part of the Sheriff of Limestone County, in which answer (among other things, not here necessary to mention, the same being foreign to any issue here involved) it was alleged that the petitioner was being held on a warrant issued by the Governor of Alabama, on a requisition from the Governor of Tennessee; that the proceedings under the petition for requisition were regular in all things, and complied with the laws of the State of Tennessee. It is further alleged in the answer that petitioner was being held by virtue of a warrant issued by the Governor of Alabama on a requisition made upon him by the Governor of Tennessee, based upon a capias issued by C. L Reed, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Giles County, Tennessee.
There is set out, and made as exhibits to the answer, the warrant of Frank M. Dixon, Governor of Alabama, authorizing the arrest of the petitioner as a fugitive from justice; the request for extradition made by the Governor of Tennessee the Honorable Prentice Cooper, on the Governor of Alabama, the Honorable Frank M. Dixon, for the extradition of petitioner, a copy of what purports to be an indictment of the Grand Jurors of Giles County, Tennessee, charging petitioner with felony, in that he did remove a certain automobile from the State of Tennessee, upon which he had given a contract of conditional sale in which the title was retained in the seller, without the written consent of the seller; a capias issued by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Giles County, Tennessee, directed to the Sheriff of Giles County, commanding him to arrest the petitioner and to have him before the Circuit Court of Giles County, in the Court House in the town of Pulaski, Tennessee, on the fourth Monday in April. There nowhere appears in the record a certification of the alleged indictment made the basis of the request for extradition.
The State of Tennessee takes this appeal as certified to by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Limestone County, Ala., in which Court the proceeding was pending. By agreement, the Honorable A. M. McConnell presided in the place of the Honorable A. A. Griffith, the Judge of the Circuit Court, who issued the preliminary writ, and before whom the cause was to be heard.
The petitioner moves this Court to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the State of Tennessee is not authorized, under the Statute, to take the appeal.
On the trial the petitioner was discharged by the trial judge from custody.
The petitition alleged that "the petitioner is illegally restrained of his liberty." In brief of counsel for appellee, the question is now raised that not one of the grounds for granting a writ of habeas corpus, as set out in Section 4332 of the Code of 1923, has been alleged in the original petition. There was no demurrer to the petition but the respondent made answer setting up the facts as hereinabove noted. Under the general allegation, that the petitioner is illegally restrained of his liberty together with answer of respondent, upon which the cause was tried and determined, it was proper for the court to take into consideration Sub-Division 4 of Section 4332 of the Code of 1923, which provides for a discharge of petiti...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Macomber v. Alexander
...69 L.Ed. 1036; State v. Rivers, 16 N.J.Super. 159, 84 A.2d 16; Quenstedt v. Wilson, 1937, 173 Md. 11, 194 A. 354; State of Tennessee v. Hamilton, 28 Ala.App. 587, 190 So. 306; Edmonson v. Ramsay, 122 Miss. 450, 84 So. 455, 10 A.L.R. 380; and see notes 10 A.L.R. In State v. Grottkau, 1889, 7......
-
State v. Parrish
...5 So.2d 828 242 Ala. 7 STATE v. PARRISH. 7 Div. 671.Supreme Court of AlabamaOctober 16, 1941 [5 So.2d ... Bergman (1910) 60 Tex.Cr.R. 8, 130 S.W. 174." [Italics ... supplied.] ... It ... The contrary view expressed ... in State of Tennessee v. Hamilton, 28 Ala.App. 587, ... 190 So. 306, by our ... ...
-
Scott v. State
...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 paragraph, this fact does not preclude our 'looking behind the prima facie case to see whether or not the warrant of the Governo......
-
Harris v. State
...to prima facie proof is stated in Barriere v. State, 142 Ala. 72, 78, 79, 39 So. 55, and restated by our court in State of Tennessee v. Hamilton, 28 Ala.App. 587, 190 So. 306. Other decisions are to the same 'It may be, as urged by counsel for the State, that the requisition and accompanyin......