Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/497

court which imposed it, and the defendant placed on probation; that thereafter the relator obtained employment, and in all other things complied with the rules and regulations applicable to persons placed on probation ; that thereafter the state’s attorney of said county notified the Warden of the State: Penitentiary that he wished the relator interned in the penitentiary; that thereafter a field officer of the penitentiary took the relator in custody; that since on or about March 10, 1921, the relator has been detained in the penitentiary; that he has never in any respect violated any of the rules or regulations of the Board of Experts ; that the Board of Experts has at no time terminated the probation, nor has the district court Which imposed the sentence in any manner revoked or set aside the order of suspension. A hearing was had before this court at which the records of the Board of Experts were produced and offered in evidence, and the members of such board, including the Warden of the State Penitentiary and other witnesses, were sworn and testified orally. From the records and such oral testimony it appears, without contradiction, that the relator has in no manner violated any of the rules or regulations of the Board of Experts, and that the Board of Experts has never so determined. On the contrary it appears that after a hearing had the Board of Experts arrived at the conclusion that the relator had not violated any of the rules and regulations applicable to persons on probation. It appears further that at ‘such meeting the state’s attorney appeared and made the charge that before the sentence was passed upon the relator, an attorney who represented the relator in such criminal case agreed with the state’s attorney that in the event sentence was suspended the relator would assist the state’s attorney in correcting “the public records of such county, and to help rid the public records of such county of all defalcation and crime,” and said state’s attorney claimed that the relator had failed to comply with this agreement. As already stated, the Board of Experts, after hearing the charges of the state’s attorney, decided that the relator had not violated any of the conditions imposed upon him as a probationer; but, in view of the attitude of the state’s attorney, they adopted a resolution that the relator be not released from custody until the state’s attorney recommended that he be released. The state’s attorney reiterated the same charge before this court which he made before the Board of Experts. He was sworn and examined as a witness upon the hearing before us. It appears from his testimony that, after the suspension of the sentence,