
    Williams v. Sipple, sheriff, etc.
   Gilbert, J.

“No person shall be discharged upon the hearing of a ’writ of habeas corpus in the following eases, to wit: . . By reason of any irregularity in the warrant or commitment, where the same substantially conforms to the requirements of this Code; nor for want of bond to prosecute. . ; By reason of any misnomer in the warrant or commitment, where the court is satisfied that the party detained is the party charged with the offense. . . In any other ease where it appears that the detention is authorized by law.” Penal Code (1910), § 1305. Eeld, that under the facts of this case the court did not err in denying.the writ of habeas corpus and in directing that the applicant be delivered to the sheriff of Wakulla County, Florida, as the agent of the State of Florida.

No. 9883.

December 13, 1933.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concu/r, except Hill, J., absent because of illness.

J ulian 8. Fine and Aaron Eravitch, for plaintiff.

Edgar J. Oliver, M. J. Yeomans, aliorney-general, J. T. Goree, and B. D. Murphy, for defendant.  