Ex parte Birkes

Annotate this Case

Ex parte Birkes
1927 OK CR 251
258 P. 1055
38 Okl.Cr. 77
Decided: 08/27/1927
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

(Syllabus.)

Bail Person Charged with Murder Held Entitled to Bail as of Right.

Held, further, that petitioner is entitled to be admitted to bail as a matter of right. Bail is therefore allowed.

Habeas corpus by Arthur Birkes, charged with murder, to be admitted to bail. Bail allowed.

Moman Pruiett and W.M. Bowles, for petitioner.

Edwin Dabney, Atty. Gen., Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., and J.W. Howard, County Atty., of Perry, for respondent.

DOYLE, P.J. In this proceeding petitioner, Arthur Birkes, by his attorneys, has presented to this court a verified petition wherein he alleges that he is unlawfully restrained of his liberty in the county jail of Noble county by W.A. Ricker, sheriff; that the cause of the said restraint is that he was committed to said county jail by C.L. Woodbury, justice of the peace in and for the city of Perry, as an examining magistrate upon a preliminary examination held upon a complaint, charging petitioner with the murder of Dr. Harry McQuown, in said county on March 23, 1927; that on the 25th day of May, 1927, upon a hearing had before the district

Page 78

court of Noble county, Hon. W.E. Rice, district judge, said judge refused to allow petitioner bail; and that your petitioner is now held by virtue of the commitment issued by the justice of the peace aforesaid.

And he further alleges that he is not guilty of the crime of murder as charged in the information; that upon the evidence introduced at said preliminary examination, together with the testimony of the petitioner as a witness in his own behalf, and the testimony of five other named witnesses, which are presented herewith, it is shown that the proof of his guilt of the crime of murder is not evident, nor the presumption thereof great.

A transcript of the testimony taken upon the preliminary examination is annexed to and made a part of the petition.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.