
    Ex parte SOUTHARD.
    (No. 10195.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 7, 1926.)
    Extradition <&wkey;39 — Where accused is charged with offense in another state, testimony of himself and wife that he was not in that state on day offense was charged to have been committed held not sufficient to defeat extradition process.
    Where accused is charged .with offense in another state, order remanding him to custody of extradition officer is not unwarranted merely on testimony of accused and his wife denying that former was in that state on day charged as that of commission of offense.
    <@=»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Tar-rant County; George E. Hosey, Judge. •
    Habeas corpus by Harding Southard to procure his release from custody in extradition proceedings. From an adverse judgment, he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Mays & Mays and Dave T. Miller, • all of Fort Worth, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groesbeck, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appeal from a remanding order of the criminal district court of Tar-rant county in a habeas corpus proceeding.

This appellant was before the criminal district court of Tarrant county on his application seeking release from the custody of an officer of the state of Ohio, who seems to have had an extradition warrant regular in all matters. It also appears that a complaint had been lodged against appellant before the proper magistrate charging him with being a fugitive from justice. As we understand the record, the only question in the case is as to the right of the court below to remand the accused when he and his wife testified that he was not in the demanding state on the particular day charged against him as being that of the commission of the offense. We are not inclined to agree with this contention. To so hold would put it in the power of persons accused in sister states of the commission of offenses, when sought to be carried back for trial upon requisition, to defeat process by merely denying that they were in the demanding state at the time the offense was committed. This is not enough.

We might further observe that both appellant and his wife admitted their presence in the state of Ohio near the time of the alleged commission of the offense. We do not undei’-stand that the state is bound, in order to make out its case, to prove that the offense was committed on the exact date alleged. There are some other contentions of appellant, none of which we think require discussion.

The judgment of the criminal district court of Tarrant county denying the relief sought and remanding the applicant to the custody of .the extradition officer will be in all things affirmed.  