Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

EX PARTE GEORGIA HOLLAND v. THE STATE.

Habeas Corpus — Executive Warrant — Name of Relator — Idem Sonans.

A bare discrepancy in the name of the relator in the executive warrant in extradition proceedings would not authorize this court to disregard the same; and it will be presumed in the absence of a statement of facts that the court below found the identity of relator upon sufficient evidence; besides the names in question are idem sonans.

BROOKS, JUDGE.

Relator filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus before the Hon. W.W. Nelms, Judge of the Criminal District Court of Dallas County, Texas, which was granted, and upon hearing thereof, relator was remanded to the custody of the sheriff of Dallas County. It appears that an executive warrant had been properly issued for the relator. The executive warrant designates relator's name to be Georgia Holland; she (relator) says her name is Georgia Harland. In the first place, this is idem sonans. Furthermore, we will presume that the party wanted is the one that is arrested. There is no statement of facts, and there is no evidence in this record to show the contrary. We will therefore presume that the court below found the identity of relator from sufficient evidence. A bare discrepancy in the name would not authorize this court to disregard the executive warrant as shown by this record. It is properly signed up by the Governor of this State, and we hold that there is no merit in relator's contention.

The judgment of the lower court is in all things affirmed.

Affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

EX PARTE HOLLAND v. THE STATE
(Mar 20, 1908)