State v. Currie

• Decision Date: 30 June 1911
• Citation: 56 So. 736,2 Ala.App. 251
• Parties: STATE v. CURRIE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

56 So. 736

2 Ala.App. 251

STATE v. CURRIE.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

June 30, 1911

Rehearing Denied Nov. 23, 1911.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; A. O. Lane, Judge.

Habeas corpus by W. M. Currie. From an order discharging petitioner the State appeals. Reversed and remanded.

See also, 56 So. 735.

Robert C. Brickell, Atty. Gen., Percy, Benners & Burr, and A. F Fite, for the State.

F. E. Blackburn and Thompson & Thompson, for appellee.

WALKER P.J.

On a hearing of the matter presented by the appellee's petition for the writ of habeas corpus, the sheriff, to whom the writ was addressed, offered in evidence, in support of his return: (1) A demand or requisition for the petitioner made by the Governor of Oklahoma upon the Governor of Alabama, which recited that the petitioner stands charged with the crime of embezzlement, committed in the county of Muskogee, in the state of Oklahoma, and that he had fled from the justice of the state of Oklahoma and taken refuge in the state of Alabama; (2) a copy of an affidavit, made before a justice of the peace in and for said county of Muskogee, charging that petitioner had unlawfully, intentionally, etc., embezzled a stated amount of money which had come into his possession while acting as manager and agent of the Leeds Woolen Mills, in said Muskogee county, which affidavit was certified as authentic by the Governor of Oklahoma; and (3) the warrant of the Governor of Alabama for the arrest of the petitioner, reciting that petitioner had been charged with crime, and had been demanded as a fugitive from justice. The petitioner objected, on several grounds, to the sufficiency of the sheriff's return and of the evidence offered in support of it. On behalf of the petitioner, evidence was introduced, tending to prove that he was not in the state of Oklahoma at the time of the commission of the offense charged against him. Other proof was offered, tending to rebut or contradict the evidence in behalf of the petitioner to this effect. At the conclusion of the evidence, the circuit judge made an order, discharging the petitioner. It is to be inferred that this action was the result of a conclusion that in some respect there was a deficiency in the evidence offered to support the claim that the petitioner was legally detained. Mention will be made of the objections which the record indicates were principally relied on by the petitioner.

It was suggested that the papers accompanying the requisition upon the Governor of Alabama should have been exemplified in the mode prescribed by the federal statute for the authentication of public acts and judicial proceedings in the several states. The statute on that subject was not applicable. It was not suggested that there was a failure to comply with the requirement of the federal extradition statute as to the certificate by the demanding Governor of the authenticity of the papers accompanying his requisition which evidenced the charge of crime. U.S. Rev. Stat. § 5278 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3597); 19 Cyc. 91.

The most that can be said in behalf of the petitioner as to the evidence on the issue raised as to the fact of his being a fugitive from justice is that the evidence on that subject is in conflict. "The court will not discharge a defendant where there is merely contradictory evidence on the subject of presence in or absence from the [demanding] state, as habeas corpus is not the proper proceeding to try the question of alibi, or any question as to the guilt or innocence of the accused." Munsey...