State v. Adams, 192 N.C. 787 (1926)

Dec. 31, 1926 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

192 N.C. 787

STATE v. HENRY ADAMS.

(Filed 31 December, 1926.)

Certiorari — Habeas Corpus — Fugitives From Justice — Requisitions— •Judgments — Appeal and Error — Review.

Where the Governor oí this State has passed upon and allowed a requisition of the Governor of another State for a fugitive from justice who has there been convicted of crime, and in proceedings in habeas corpus there is no valid defense made to the judgment concerning which the requisition had been made and allowed, a certiorari will be denied in the Supreme Court to bring the proceedings had below up for review.

PetitioN for certiorari, in lieu of appeal, to review judgment of Barnhill, J., rendered 14 August, 1926, at Bocky Mount, on return to writ of habeas corpus, refusing to discharge the petitioner from custody.

Attorney-General Brwmmitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.

John L. Bridgers and Henry 0. Bourne for petitioner.

Stagy, 0. J.

The petition made to this Court for a certiorari, is based on the following material allegations:

1. That in July, 1926, the petitioner was convicted in the State of Georgia of violating the prohibition law, and, by way of punishment, was given ten days witbin wbicb to pay a fine of $150.00 and costs, failing in wbicb be was to serve a term of six months on tbe county roads of Chattooga County. Being unable to raise said fine, tbe petitioner departed from tbe State of Georgia and came to North Carolina, intending to remain here permanently and to make bis borne in this State.

2. That a requisition for tbe extradition of tbe petitioner was duly made by tbe Governor of tbe State of Georgia upon tbe Governor of this State, and after a bearing before tbe Governor of North Carolina, said requisition was honored and a warrant of extradition duly issued for tbe petitioner and delivered to tbe agent of tbe State of Georgia.

On tbe bearing before Judge Barnhill, it was admitted “that tbe said requisition papers are regular and in proper form.” Upon this admission, petitioner’s application for discharge from custody was denied.

Other allegations are set out in tbe petition with respect to tbe manner in wbicb tbe petitioner was arrested and held'prior to tbe issuance of tbe extradition warrant by tbe Governor, but these, it would seem, are no longer material in view of tbe admission made on tbe bearing and incorporated in tbe judgment refusing to discharge tbe petitioner.

While tbe petitioner’s first allegation is couched in soft language, nevertheless it is to tbe effect that be is a “fugitive from justice” witbin tbe meaning of tbe law. In re Sultan, 115 N. C., 57; S. v. Hall, ibid., 817. Tbe petitioner neither denies bis identity nor challenges tbe sufficiency of tbe charge. 11 R. C. L., 734 et seq. That be was properly convicted of a crime in tbe State of Georgia is conceded. Hence, it appears that tbe judgment refusing to discharge tbe petitioner is correct. His application for certiorari to review tbe judgment must be denied. For a general discussion of tbe questions sought to be presented, see Robb v. Connolly, 111 U. S., 624.

Certiorari disallowed.