State v. Olsen, 5993
Decision Date | 16 October 1933 |
Docket Number | 5993 |
Citation | 53 Idaho 546,26 P.2d 127 |
Parties | STATE, Respondent, v. C. C. OLSEN, Appellant |
Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
HABEAS CORPUS-PETITION, FUNCTION OF-RETURN.
1. Function of petition for habeas corpus is to secure issuance of writ, and, when writ is issued, petition has accomplished its purpose (I. C. A., sec. 19-4312).
2. Court properly quashed habeas corpus writ where return showed petitioner was not, and never had been, in custody (I. C. A sec. 19-4312).
APPEAL from the District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District for Twin Falls County. Hon. Wm. A. Babcock, Judge.
Proceeding by C. C. Olsen for a writ of habeas corpus to be directed to E. F. Prater, sheriff of Twin Falls county. From an order denying the writ Olsen appeals. Affirmed.
Affirmed.
Chapman & Chapman, for Appellant.
Cite no authorities on points decided.
Bert H Miller, Attorney General, and Ariel L. Crowley, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
In the absence of a traverse to a return, the only question for determination is whether or not the facts stated in the return, as a matter of law, authorize the restraint under investigation. (Allen v. Williams, 31 Idaho 309, 171 P. 493; 29 C. J. 164, 165; Moore v. United States, 159 F. 701, 86 C. C. A. 569.)
October 17, 1932, a criminal complaint was filed in the probate court of Twin Falls county charging appellant with the crime of larceny in an alleged sale of certain mortgaged personal property, without the consent of the mortgagee. A warrant of arrest thereupon issued. December 5, 1932, appellant was arrested, taken into court and arraigned, and admitted to bail. On that day bail bond was filed. December 14, 1932, an amended criminal complaint was filed in that court charging the appellant with the crime of larceny in the alleged removal of the mortgaged personal property from Twin Falls county, without the consent of the mortgagee holder, and a preliminary examination was had and an order made holding the appellant to answer and continuing the bond.
January 7, 1933, appellant filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the district court of Twin Falls county. And on the same day an order was made granting the writ, and the writ issued, and an order was also made admitting the appellant to bail, and the bail bond filed pursuant to the last-mentioned order. January 9, 1933, E. F. Prater, sheriff, to whom the writ was directed, made and filed the following return:
"In the Matter of the Application for a writ of Habeas
Corpus for C. C. OLSEN.
The appellant did not file an answer to the return of the sheriff, as provided by sec. 19-4312, denying the matters set forth in the return, nor did the appellant except to the sufficiency thereof, or allege any fact to show either that his alleged imprisonment or detention was unlawful, or that he was entitled to his discharge.
January 9, 1933, the return was heard. No testimony was adduced or documentary evidence offered by the appellant. The respondent placed Frank J. Smith, clerk of the district court for Twin Falls county, on the stand, who testified, among other things, to the effect that appellant was then out on bail. January 14, 1933, the trial court made an order quashing the writ. The appeal is from that order.
The function of the petition is to secure the issuance of the writ, and, when the writ is issued, the petition has accomplished its purpose. (Ex parte Collins, 151 Cal. 340, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Enke, Application of, 9571
...papers the court has jurisdiction to proceed. In re Collins, 151 Cal. 340, 342, 90 P. 827, 91 P. 397, 129 Am.St.Rep. 122; State v. Olsen, 53 Idaho 546, 549, 26 P.2d 127; 39 C.J.S., Habeas Corpus, Sec. 88, pages 651, 652; 25 Am.Jur., Habeas Corpus, Sec. 124, pp. 235, 236. Without more then w......
-
Jacobsen v. State
...that writ has been issued the petition has served its office. Jackson v. State, 87 Idaho 267, 392 P.2d 695 (1964); State v. Olsen, 53 Idaho 546, 26 P.2d 127, 128 (1933). It is also argued that the failure of the sheriff's return to annex a copy of the documents under which custody of the ap......
-
Clemens v. Kinsley
...possession of the child. § 19-4201, I.C.; Evans v. Dist. Ct., 47 Idaho 267, 275 P. 99; 39 C.J.S., Habeas Corpus, § 9; State v. Olsen, 53 Idaho 546, 26 P.2d 127. Nor is this a case of separation without divorce under § 32-1005, However, we are not confined to statutory provisions for a delin......
-
In re Petition of Rash
...of their liberties. (Secs. 19-4301, 4302, 4305, 4308, 4309, I. C. A.; Evans v. District Court, 47 Idaho 267, 275 P. 99; State v. Olsen, 53 Idaho 546, 26 P.2d 127; In re Dykes, et al., (Okla.) 74 P. 506; Ex Powell, et al., (Wash.) 70 P.2d 778; Ex Parte Ford (Cal.) 116 P. 757; Ex parte Gilkey......