The issuance of a warrant of rendition by the Governor of the asylum state raises a presumption that the accused is the fugitive wanted and it is sufficient to justify his arrest, detention and delivery to the demanding state. In order to rebut the presumption, the accused must prove beyond a reasonable doubt either that he was no present in the demanding state at the time of the alleged offense or that he was not the person named in the warrant. State ex rel. Hart v. Dist. Ct., 157 Mont. 287, 293-94, 485 P.2d 698, 702 (1971).
The question as to whether a defendant is a fugitive from justice is one of fact. The presumption raised by a governor's warrant in an asylum state in a habeas corpus proceeding may be overcome either by a petitioner showing that he was not within the demanding state at the time the crime was committed or that he has not since left the state. State ex rel. Hart v. Dist. Ct., 157 Mont. 287, 291-92, 485 P.2d 698, 701 (1971).
A district court's power of inquiry with regard to extradition proceedings is limited. The court can determine whether the documents are in order on their face; whether the petitioner was charged with a crime in the demanding state; whether petitioner is the person named in the extradition request; and whether petitioner is a fugitive. Dismissal of the entire proceeding is improper since the authority to honor or reject an extradition demand lies solely with the Governor. State v. Campbell, 233 Mont. 502, 507, 761 P.2d 393, 396-97 (1988).