In Re Parman

California Court of Appeal

In Re Parman

278 P. 911, 99 Cal. App. 509, 1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 496

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 19, 1929

DocketDocket No. 1549.

StatusPublished

This text of 278 P. 911 (In Re Parman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Parman, 278 P. 911, 99 Cal. App. 509, 1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 496 (Cal. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

Petitioner herein filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that he was held illegally by the police authorities upon a warrant charging him with being a fugitive from justice of the state of Washington.

He claimed in the petition that he was not in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged offense. The matter was referred by this court to Honorable C. J. Goodell, Judge of the Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco, for hearing. The findings returned to this court show that a hearing was had and that on such hearing it appeared that the extradition demand charges an offense committed by petitioner against the laws of the state of Washington, in positive and direct terms. They further show that petitioner offered no testimony to the effect that he was absent from the demanding state at the time of the commission of the offense charged, as claimed in his petition. It also appears therefrom that the demand for the petitioner is in all respects legally sufficient. This being so, the writ is discharged and the petitioner remanded.

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

THE COURT.

Petitioner herein filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that he was held illegally by the police authorities upon a warrant charging him with being a fugitive from justice of the state of Washington.

He claimed in the petition that he was not in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged offense. The matter was referred by this court to Honorable C. J. Goodell, Judge of the Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco, for hearing. The findings returned to this court show that a hearing was had and that on such hearing it appeared that the extradition demand charges an offense committed by petitioner against the laws of the state of Washington, in positive and direct terms. They further show that petitioner offered no testimony to the effect that he was absent from the demanding state at the time of the commission of the offense charged, as claimed in his petition. It also appears therefrom that the demand for the petitioner is in all respects legally sufficient. This being so, the writ is discharged and the petitioner remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 P. 911, 99 Cal. App. 509, 1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 496, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-parman-calctapp-1929.