Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

25 Ala. App. 212

143 So 585

Paulk v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided June 14, 1932

Alabama Court of Appeals · decided 1932-06-14

Relies on Ex Parte Herring · Ex Parte Sloss-Sheffield Steel Iron Co. · 20 Ala. App. 302 - Thacker v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1932-06-14

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently November 1982

5 state decisions

30193219401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

RICE, J.

¶1 Petitioner is in the custody of the sheriff of Montgomery county, under and by virtue of an arrest under a Governor’s warrant issued by the Governor of Alabama upon the request of the Governor of Georgia. Code 1923, §§ 4181, 4175; Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, Gen. Acts Ala. 1931, p. 559.

¶2 He filed this petition for the writ of habeas corpus with the probate judge of Montgomery county, seeking to obtain his discharge from custody, etc., and, from an adverse order, he brings this appeal, under the statute. Act approved June 16, 1927, Gen. Acts Ala. 1927, p. 76.

¶3 We'do not observe that the law here appertaining has been essentially altered by the above cited Uniform Criminal Extradition Act.

¶4 The Governor’s warrant, under which petitioner is held, seems in all things regular, and to contain the recitals specified by law to give it validity.

¶5 So it would appear that, in accordance with the former pronouncement of this court, which pronouncement had the approval of *213 our Supreme Court, there were and are but two questions open to inquiry in this proceeding, viz.: (1) Was petitioner a fugitive from justice; and (2) is he the identical person described in the said Governor’s warrant. Thacker v. State, 20 Ala. App. 302, 101 So. 636; Id.,212 Ala. 3, 101 So. 638. And see Parker v. State, 23 Ala. App. 238, 124 So. 249; Id.,220 Ala. 103, 124 So. 250.

¶6 The evidence sent up seems to, and we hold it does, amply support the order made by the probate judge, etc.

¶7 The same is hereby affirmed. Writ denied.

¶8 Affirmed.

/25/alaapp/212 · .json · Public domain