In Re Norton

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

In Re Norton

1925 OK CR 570, 240 P. 1117, 32 Okla. Crim. 331, 1925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 558

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 28, 1925

DocketNo. A-5674.

StatusPublished

This text of 1925 OK CR 570 (In Re Norton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Norton, 1925 OK CR 570, 240 P. 1117, 32 Okla. Crim. 331, 1925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 558 (Okla. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

*332 PER CURIAM.

The petitioner says that he is illegally restrained of his liberty by Henry Law, sheriff of Blaine county; that the cause of his restraint is that the petitioner was convicted of the illegal sale of intoxicating liquor in the state of Louisiana, and was sentenced to serve a term of 30 days in jail and to pay a fine of $300; that he served the jail sentence and worked on the parish roads and highways for a period of 3 months, when the sheriff of the parish voluntarily discharged the petitioner, in order that he might arrange for the balance of the fine, amounting to $200; that thereupon the petitioner came to his home in Watonga, where he undertook to raise sufficient money to pay the fine, but was unable to do so; that thereafter the Governor of Louisiana issued a requisition for his return to that state, and the petitioner was taken into custody and incarcerated in the jail of Blaine county, where he was kept for a period of 14 days, awaiting the arrival of the authorities from Louisiana, and then released; that again the petitioner was arrested on demand of the Louisiana sheriff, and again placed in the jail of Blaine county, and he now asks that a writ of habeas corpus issue, and that he be given his liberty. Upon the showing made and the evidence heard, the court finds that this is an effort to collect a fine in the nature of a debt, and that the writ should be and is hereby allowed, and the petitioner discharged.

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

*332 PER CURIAM.

The petitioner says that he is illegally restrained of his liberty by Henry Law, sheriff of Blaine county; that the cause of his restraint is that the petitioner was convicted of the illegal sale of intoxicating liquor in the state of Louisiana, and was sentenced to serve a term of 30 days in jail and to pay a fine of $300; that he served the jail sentence and worked on the parish roads and highways for a period of 3 months, when the sheriff of the parish voluntarily discharged the petitioner, in order that he might arrange for the balance of the fine, amounting to $200; that thereupon the petitioner came to his home in Watonga, where he undertook to raise sufficient money to pay the fine, but was unable to do so; that thereafter the Governor of Louisiana issued a requisition for his return to that state, and the petitioner was taken into custody and incarcerated in the jail of Blaine county, where he was kept for a period of 14 days, awaiting the arrival of the authorities from Louisiana, and then released; that again the petitioner was arrested on demand of the Louisiana sheriff, and again placed in the jail of Blaine county, and he now asks that a writ of habeas corpus issue, and that he be given his liberty. Upon the showing made and the evidence heard, the court finds that this is an effort to collect a fine in the nature of a debt, and that the writ should be and is hereby allowed, and the petitioner discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1925 OK CR 570, 240 P. 1117, 32 Okla. Crim. 331, 1925 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-norton-oklacrimapp-1925.