From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Williams

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Mar 16, 1926
12 F.2d 66 (5th Cir. 1926)


No. 4577.

March 16, 1926.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana; Charlton R. Beattie, Judge.

Habeas corpus proceeding by the United States, on the relation of Hart Austin, alias Louis Austin, alias Frank Smith, etc., against George E. Williams, Criminal Sheriff, and others. From an order discharging the writ, relator appeals. Affirmed.

For opinion below, see 6 F.2d 13.

Ulic J. Burke, of New Orleans, La. (Ulic J. Burke and Jules A. Grasser, both of New Orleans, La., on the brief), for appellant.

Henry Mooney and Richard A. Dowling, both of New Orleans, La., for appellees.

Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit Judges.

This is an appeal from an order discharging a writ of habeas corpus, sued out by the appellant, Hart Austin, after the Governor of Louisiana, pursuant to a requisition of the Governor of Utah, setting forth a duly made charge of burglary committed by the appellant in that state, had issued his warrant directing that appellant be apprehended and delivered into the custody of a named agent of the state of Utah.

The principal complaint as to the discharge of the writ is based upon the consideration by the Governor of Louisiana, and the admission in evidence on the hearing below, of affidavits by residents of Utah that the appellant, whose picture was attached to each of such affidavits, was the person who committed the alleged crime. Such evidence properly may be considered in determining whether the person sought to be surrendered is or is not the one charged with crime, and whether he was or was not in the demanding state when the crime is alleged to have been committed. Munsey v. Clough, 196 U.S. 364, 374, 25 S. Ct. 282, 49 L. Ed. 515.

The evidence adduced on the hearing under the writ of habeas corpus was not such as to require the conclusion that the finding of the Governor of Louisiana, evidenced by his warrant of arrest, that the appellant was a fugitive, was clearly overthrown. That finding must stand, as it was not clearly overthrown. Hogan v. O'Neill, 255 U.S. 52, 41 S. Ct. 222, 65 L. Ed. 497. The record does not show that error was committed in discharging the writ.

The order is affirmed.

Summaries of

United States v. Williams

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Mar 16, 1926
12 F.2d 66 (5th Cir. 1926)
Case details for

United States v. Williams

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES ex rel. AUSTIN v. WILLIAMS, Sheriff, et al

Court:Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Mar 16, 1926


12 F.2d 66 (5th Cir. 1926)

Citing Cases

Smith v. State

Affidavits are admissible in extradition proceedings on the question of identity and presence in the…

Letwick v. State

In holding the evidence competent, the court said: "This is not a criminal case, controlled by the…