Ex Parte Bollman

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Ex Parte Bollman

1909 OK CR 89, 103 P. 664, 2 Okla. Crim. 586, 1909 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 172

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma·Decided August 23, 1909·No. No. A-287.·Published

Opinion

PEE OUEIAM.

This is a petition for writ oí-habeas corpus, presented to this court on behalf of Fred Bollman, who alleges that he is unlawfully imprisoned and restrained of his liberty at Chickasha, by M. B. Louthan, sheriff of Grady county, Okla., by virtue of a certain pretended commitment issued by Hon. N. M. Williams, county judge of Grady county, which commitment is biased upon a pretended judgment against petitioner, and that said pretended judgment is null and void, and is of no force and effect, and by reason thereof petitioner is unlawfully restrained of his liberty “without due process of the law,” in violation of the Constitution and laws of the state of Oklahoma.

The record of conviction, judgment, and sentence in this case is the same as in the case of Ex parte Earl Howard, reported in this volume and 103 Pac. 663.

The question presented is identical, and, for the reasons set forth in said opinion, the application for writ of habeas corpus is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PEE OUEIAM.

This is a petition for writ oí-habeas corpus, presented to this court on behalf of Fred Bollman, who alleges that he is unlawfully imprisoned and restrained of his liberty at Chickasha, by M. B. Louthan, sheriff of Grady county, Okla., by virtue of a certain pretended commitment issued by Hon. N. M. Williams, county judge of Grady county, which commitment is biased upon a pretended judgment against petitioner, and that said pretended judgment is null and void, and is of no force and effect, and by reason thereof petitioner is unlawfully restrained of his liberty “without due process of the law,” in violation of the Constitution and laws of the state of Oklahoma.

The record of conviction, judgment, and sentence in this case is the same as in the case of Ex parte Earl Howard, reported in this volume and 103 Pac. 663.

The question presented is identical, and, for the reasons set forth in said opinion, the application for writ of habeas corpus is denied.

Ex Parte Bollman, 1909 OK CR 89, 103 P. 664, 2 Okla. Crim. 586, 1909 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 172 (Okla. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

1909 OK CR 89 (Ex Parte Bollman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related