From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Massey

Supreme Court of Alabama
Nov 17, 1960
124 So. 2d 462 (Ala. 1960)

Opinion

6 Div. 593.

November 17, 1960.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Wallace C. Gibson, J.

MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Jerry L. Coe, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

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.

Extradition proceedings may not be used where they directly or indirectly seek to aid in the collection of any debt, demand or claim against the party sought to be extradited. Code 1940, Tit. 15, § 68; Kilgore v. State, 261 Ala. 465, 75 So.2d 126; Russell v. State, 251 Ala. 268, 37 So.2d 233; Scott v. State, 33 Ala. App. 328, 33 So.2d 390. Liberal rules of procedure are applied on habeas corpus hearings and the trial judge in such a case should allow and give due consideration to any and all evidence which might show that the real purpose of extradition is for the collection of a debt. Kilgore v. State, supra; Tingley v. State, 251 Ala. 452, 37 So.2d 680. An attorney is the agent of his client, and his acts are the acts of his client. McWilliams v. Martin, 237 Ala. 624, 188 So. 677; Albert Hass Lumber Co. v. Gibson, 172 Ala. 111, 54 So. 994. A letter is prima facie admissible in evidence where it is shown that it is a reply to previous correspondence and that it was received in due course by mail. Reliance Life Ins. Co. v. Russell, 208 Ala. 559, 94 So. 748; White v. Tolliver, 110 Ala. 300, 20 So. 97; American Workmen v. James, 14 Ala. App. 477, 70 So. 976.


This is an appeal from a judgment rendered on May 6, 1960 by the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, granting a writ of habeas corpus discharging petitioner, Ed Massey.

The petitioner, Ed Massey, was arrested on April 23, 1960 pursuant to a warrant issued by the Governor of Alabama on April 14, 1960. Said warrant was issued at the request of the Governor of the State of New Jersey and charged the petitioner under an indictment with the offense of obtaining money under false pretense.

On April 23, 1960, the petitioner presented a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the Honorable Wallace Gibson, Circuit Judge of Jefferson County, seeking his release on the ground that the proceedings were instituted for the collection of an alleged debt.

It is alleged that Ed Massey, the petitioner, had traded to Mr. Jack Canova, a car dealer in Bergen County, New Jersey, an automobile which did not belong to Ed Massey, for another automobile. As a result of said trade, Mr. Jack Canova allegedly had a claim against Mr. Massey for $4,950.

Mr. Jack Canova was represented by a Mr. Lawrence Garofalo, an attorney, who attempted to collect said claim. Mr. Canova signed a complaint against Mr. Massey to start criminal action in 1953, and he admits that his attorney, Mr. Garofalo, has had correspondence with Mr. Rogers, the attorney for Mr. Massey, in an attempt to settle this claim.

There is but one question presented for our consideration by the brief of appellant; that being the propriety of the trial court's admitting eleven letters into evidence, said letters alleged to have been written by Mr. Garofalo, attorney for Canova, to Mr. Rogers, attorney for Massey.

Appellant contends that the signature on the letters was never properly identified and that the letters were irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial.

The position of the petitioner was that the purpose of the extradition proceedings was to aid in the collection of a debt.

If the letters show that the real purpose of the extradition is for the collection of a debt, then they would certainly be material and relevant to this cause and should be admitted. Kilgore v. State, 261 Ala. 465, 75 So.2d 126; Tingley v. State, 251. Ala. 452, 37 So.2d 680; State of Tennessee v. Hamilton, 28 Ala. App. 587, 190 So. 306; Scott v. State, 33 Ala. App. 328, 33 So.2d 390. However, the letters must be competent evidence. Seibold v. State, 262 Ala. 322, 78 So.2d 644; Kilgore v. State, supra.

The letters were shown to have been received in due course of mail and were on the letterhead of the alleged sender, Mr. Garofalo, the admitted attorney for Mr. Canova. The trial judge examined the letters, such examination showing them to be in response to letters previously written to Mr. Garofalo by Mr. Rogers, the attorney for Mr. Massey. Under such circumstances, the presumption or inference is that the letters were written by the purported sender, or for him by someone authorized by him, which presumption or inference continues until overcome by evidence to the contrary offered by the purported sender. White v. Tolliver, 110 Ala. 300, 20 So. 97; Butterworth Lowe v. Cathcart, 168 Ala. 262, 52 So. 896; Rike v. McHugh Groom, 188 Ala. 237, 66 So. 452; Reliance Life Ins. Co. v. Russell, 208 Ala. 559, 94 So. 748; American Workmen v. James, 14 Ala. App. 477, 70 So. 976.

There being no evidence to the contrary offered by the state, the trial court committed no error in admitting the letters.

Affirmed.

SIMPSON, GOODWYN and COLEMAN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Massey

Supreme Court of Alabama
Nov 17, 1960
124 So. 2d 462 (Ala. 1960)
Case details for

State v. Massey

Case Details

Full title:STATE of Alabama v. Ed MASSEY

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: Nov 17, 1960

Citations

124 So. 2d 462 (Ala. 1960)
124 So. 2d 462

Citing Cases

Chrisman v. Brooks

Lee v. Menefield, 249 Ala. 407, 31 So.2d 581; Hutcheson v. Bibb, 142 Ala. 586, 38 So. 841; Webb v. Webb, 250…