Ex Parte Roselle

222 S.W. 248, 87 Tex. Crim. 470, 1920 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 256
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 5, 1920
DocketNo. 5827.
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 222 S.W. 248 (Ex Parte Roselle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ex Parte Roselle, 222 S.W. 248, 87 Tex. Crim. 470, 1920 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 256 (Tex. 1920).

Opinions

LATTIMORE, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Criminal District Court of Harris County, remanding appellant to the custody of certain officers of that county, and directing that he be forthwith delivered to the extradition agent of the State of Wyoming.

On April 12, 1920, a warrant issued from the office of the Governor of Texas, duly reciting that appellant stood properly charged by affidavit, with the offense of forgery in the State of Wyoming, and that demand had been made, in accordance with the laws of the United States, and of this State, for the delivery of appellant to a named officer of said State of Wyoming, to be by him extradited. The application for the writ of habeas corpus seems to set up that appellant was detained without any warrant or due process of law, it being stated therein that he was held under a telegram from a Wyoming officer. The application was dated April 7, 1920. A hearing was had in the court below, and judgment rendered remanding appellant *472 on April 13, 1920; and the warrant above referred to seems to have been offered in evidence. We.think the judgment of the trial court correct. Said warrant was signed by W. A. Johnson, Acting Governor, and duly certified to by the Secretary of State. This Court judicially knows that W. A. Johnson is the duly elected and qualified Lieutenant Governor of Texas, and that he has authority, and is required, in the absence or inability of the Governor, to act as governor of the State. The presumption is in favor of the regularity of the acts of the said Johnson as Acting Governor, and in the absence of some showing to the contrary, such acts will be upheld.

The objections to the jurat to the complaint against appellant, are not matters which we can consider.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Ex parte Grooms
468 S.W.2d 817 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1971)
In Re Martz
357 P.2d 940 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1960)
Ex Parte Du Bois
243 S.W.2d 698 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1951)
Ex Parte Raulie
237 S.W.2d 998 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1951)
Ex Parte Smith
232 S.W.2d 992 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1950)
Ex Parte Combs
105 S.W.2d 1096 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1937)
Mitchell v. Stoutamire
152 So. 629 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1934)
Ex Parte Gordon
37 S.W.2d 1023 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1931)
Ex Parte Cragolla
260 S.W. 189 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
222 S.W. 248, 87 Tex. Crim. 470, 1920 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-roselle-texcrimapp-1920.