TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ex Parte Chablz

Ex Parte Mike Chablz.

Ex Parte Chablz, 260 S.W. 190 (Tex. Crim. App. 1924)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 20, 1924
Docket
No. 8388.
Judges
Hawkins, Morrow
Citations
260 S.W. 19097 Tex. Crim. 91924 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 179
Headnotes
1. —Habeas Corpus — Extradition Proceedings — Companion Case. Where the recitals in the warrant and the affidavit accompanying the requisition on file with the Governor of this State are in all particulars like those in a companion case, recently decided and are sufficient in form and substance, the judgment is affirmed. 2. —Same—Rehearing—Practice on Appeal. This court has again examined the record and fails to discover any error in the original opinion, and the motion for rehearing is overruled.
Summary
The opinion states the case.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Morrow

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal from the refusal of the Honorable W. W. McCrory, Judge of the District Court of Bexar County, to discharge the relator who is held upon an executive warrant issued by the Governor of the State of Texas upon a requisition from the Governor of the State of Nebraska.

The recitals in the warrant and the affidavits accompanying the requisition on file with the Governor of this State are in all particulars like those in the case of Ex parte Gaquira Cragolla, No. 8387, this day decided, and are deemed sufficient in form and substance to support the order of the learned trial judge in refusing to discharge the relator.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Addendum — Hawkins

ON rehearing.

March 26, 1924.

HAWKINS, Judge.

In the motion for rehearing relator proceeds on the assumption that certain defects exist in the affidavit charging *10 him with crime in the demanding state, which would not support a demand for requisition. We have again examined the record and fail to discover the defects suggested.

The motion is overruled.

Overruled.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list