Case ID: tex-crim_97/html/0009-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MORROW, Presiding Judge. HAWKINS, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ex Parte Mike Chablz.
    No. 8388.
    Decided February 20, 1924.
    Rehearing denied March 26, 1924.
    1. —Habeas Corpus — Extradition Proceedings — Companion Case.
    Where the recitals in the warrant and the affidavit accompanying the requisition on file with the Governor of this State are in all particulars like those in a companion case, recently decided and are sufficient in form and substance, the judgment is affirmed.
    2. —Same—Rehearing—Practice on Appeal.
    This court has again examined the record and fails to discover any error in the original opinion, and the motion for rehearing is overruled.
    Appeal from the District Court of Bexar. Tried below before the Honorable W. W. McCrory.
    Appeal from an extradition proceeding remitting relator to the officers of the demanding state.
    The opinion states the case.
    
      Heilbron, Matthews & Ragsdale, for relator.
    
      Tom Garrard and Grover C. Morris, Assistants Attorney General, for the State.
   MORROW, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal from the refusal of the Honorable W. W. McCrory, Judge of the District Court of Bexar County, to discharge the relator who is held upon an executive warrant issued by the Governor of the State of Texas upon a requisition from the Governor of the State of Nebraska.

The recitals in the warrant and the affidavits accompanying the requisition on file with the Governor of this State are in all particulars like those in the case of Ex parte Gaquira Cragolla, No. 8387, this day decided, and are deemed sufficient in form and substance to support the order of the learned trial judge in refusing to discharge the relator.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

ON rehearing.

March 26, 1924.

HAWKINS, Judge.

In the motion for rehearing relator proceeds on the assumption that certain defects exist in the affidavit charging him with crime in the demanding state, which would not support a demand for requisition. We have again examined the record and fail to discover the defects suggested.

The motion is overruled.

Overruled.