State v. Currie

• Citation: 56 So. 735,174 Ala. 1
• Parties: STATE v. CURRIE.
• Decision Date: 31 May 1911
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

56 So. 735

174 Ala. 1

STATE v. CURRIE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 31, 1911

Habeas corpus by W. M. Currie. From an order discharging petitioner the State appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certifies questions to the Supreme Court. Questions answered.

See also, 56 So. 736.

In the above-entitled case, the judges of the Court of Appeals being unable to reach a unanimous conclusion or decision, the judges of said court, pursuant to the provision of the statute in such case made and provided, hereby certify to the Supreme Court of Alabama the following questions of law as to which the said judges differ:

"On a hearing of the matter presented by a 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 the state of Oklahoma upon the Governor of the state of Alabama, which recited that petitioner stands charged with the crime of embezzlement, committed in the county of Muskogee, in said state of Oklahoma, and that he had fled from the justice of said state 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, state of Oklahoma, charging that petitioner had unlawfully, intentionally, wrongfully, and feloniously 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 the state of Oklahoma; and (3) the warrant of the Governor of the state of Alabama, authorizing the arrest of the petitioner. Petitioner objected to the evidence offered in support of the sheriff's return upon the grounds, in substance that, for aught that is shown thereby, petitioner has not been guilty of any violation of any law of the state of Oklahoma, and that the evidence did not show that petitioner had violated any criminal law of the state of Oklahoma.

"Question 1. On the facts disclosed by the evidence, is it shown that the sheriff is entitled to hold the petitioner, in the absence of proof of the law of the state of Oklahoma which petitioner was charged with having violated?

"Question 2. Is the proof offered sufficient to show that petitioner was legally held by the sheriff, in the absence of proof showing that embezzlement constitutes a crime under the law of the state of Oklahoma?

"The above questions are submitted as abstract propositions, as directed by the statute;...