Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

18 Ala. App. 107

90 So 65

Pixley v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided February 8, 1921

Alabama Court of Appeals · decided 1921-02-08

T. Lowe, Judge. Habeas corpus proceeding by D. M. Pixley. Discharge denied, and petitioner appeals. Defendant was entitled, under the facts, to his discharge. 39 Ala. 560; 140 Ala. 177, 37 South. 250; section 7023, Code 1907. The returns make out a prima facie case, and the court properly denied the writ. 17 Ala. App. 405, 85 South. 590; 16 Ala.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1925

1 state decisions

Relies on 16 Ala. App. 397 - Godwin v. State · Ex parte State · Barriere v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1921-02-08

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

MERRITT, J.

¶1The petitioner, D. M. Pixley, filed his petition before Hon. W. T. Lowe, judge of the Morgan county court, of Morgan county, Ala., praying for - his discharge.

¶2The appellant- was arrested in Morgan county, Ala., on the warrant of the Governor of Alabama, in compliance with the requisition of Ben E. McFerrin, Acting Governor of the state of Arkansas, charging petitioner "(jjth being a fugitive from justice from the state of Arkansas. On a hearing it was ordered that petitioner was not entitled to his discharge, and he was remanded to the custody of W. F. Sibeck, as agent of the state of Arkansas.

¶3[1] On the trial of the cause it was shown that Ben E. McFerrin, president of the state senate of the state of Arkansas, by virtue of such position was entitled to act, and in fact was at the time of the issuance of such requisition acting Governor of the state of Arkansas; that as such acting Governor he had demanded the person of the petitioner as a fugitive from justice, of the executive authority of the state of Alabama, to which state it was alleged he had fled, and there was produced a copy of the warrant of the Governor of Alabama authorizing the arrest of petitioner; there was produced a copy of an indictment found by the Pulaski circuit court of Arkansas, charging the petitioner with grand larceny and embezzlement, certified as authentic by the proper officials of the state of Arkansas. These papers were in all things regular, and thereby made out a prima facie case that the petitioner was legally held. Godwin v. State, 16 Ala. App. 397, 78 South. 313; Mohr’s Case, 73 Ala. 503, 49 Am. Rep. 63; Barriere v. State, 142 Ala. 72, 39 South. 55; Singleton v. State, 144 Ala. 104, 42 South. 23; Ex parte Forbes, 204 Ala. 698, 85 South. 921. U. S. Comp. Stat. 1916, p. 12410, § 10126. The *108papers certified to by the secretary of state of the state of Arkansas were in compliance with the acts of Congress, and were in all things legal and regular. 3 U. S. Compiled Statutes 1916, p. 2431, § 1519; Id., p. 2475, § 1520. They were properly received in evidence.

¶4[2] There is no merit in the contention that the Governor of Alabama should have made certification of these papers, in order for them to have been admissible in evidence. Under the provisions of section 573, subdivision 1, Code 1907 of Alabama, it is made the duty of the secretary of state to keep the state seal, the original statutes and records of the state, etc.; while section 3983 provides that all transcripts of books or papers, or parts thereof, required by law to be kept in the office of any officer, when certified by the proper custodian thereof, must be received in evidence in all courts. The secretary of state was the proper custodian of these papers, and, when certified by him, they were properly received in evidence by the court.

¶5We find no error in the record, and the judgment of the judge of the Morgan county court is affirmed.

¶6Affirmed.

¶7<gc=>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes-

/18/alaapp/107 · .json · Public domain