Stover v. State, 25 Ala. App. 222, 143 So. 239; 7 Ala.Dig., Criminal Law, 1170 (3). All of the evidence offered by appellant amounted to a defense, and cannot be considered in this proceeding. State v. Curry, 2 Ala. App. 251, 56 So. 736; Tingley v. State, 34 Ala. App. 379, 41 So.2d 276; Morrison v. State, 258 Ala. 410, 63 So.2d 346; McGahee v. Wall, 38 Ala. App. 348, 83 So.2d 252; Blackwell v. State, 38 Ala. App. 562, 89 So.2d 228; Gambrell v. Bridges, 39 Ala. App. 5, 96 So.2d 178. PRICE, Judge.

In a hearing on petition for writ of habeas corpus, evidence which tends to show that the extradition is sought to aid in the collection of a debt should be admitted; but this means that the evidence must be competent, relevant and material. Seibold v. State, 262 Ala. 322, 78 So.2d 644; Tingley v. State, 34 Ala. App. 379, 41 So.2d 276; Id., 252 Ala. 520, 41 So.2d 280; Morrison v. State, 258 Ala. 410, 63 So.2d 346; McGahee v. Wall, 38 Ala. App. 348, 83 So.2d 252; Blackwell v. State, 38 Ala. App. 562, 89 So.2d 228; Gambrell v. Bridges, 39 Ala. App. 5, 96 So.2d 178; 39 C.J.S. Habeas Corpus § 100; Kilgore v. State, 261 Ala. 465, 75 So.2d 126. Rogers, Howard Redden and Wm. H. Mills, Birmingham, for appellee.

In a habeas corpus proceeding on an extradition case, it is necessary and proper to pass only on the legality of the requisition and proper rendition. The only inquiry to be made is whether the statutory prerequisites have been complied with. 25 Am.Jur., Habeas Corpus, § 67; 39 C.J.S. Habeas Corpus § 39; Woods v. State, 264 Ala. 315, 87 So.2d 633; Adams v. State, 253 Ala. 387, 45 So.2d 43; Gambrell v. Bridges, 39 Ala. App. 5, 96 So.2d 178; Id. 266 Ala. 302, 96 So.2d 182.