Page images
PDF
EPUB

in the return. Robinson 1. Flanders, (1867) 29 Ind. 10. See People 1. Pinkertor, (1879) 77 N. Y. 245.

A state statute requiring the officer making the arrest to take the prisoner before the nearest judge for identification is clearly within the constitutional power and duty of the legislature. Robinson v. Flanders, (1867) 29 Ind. 10.

Charged with a crime. — A requisition, being accompanied by a copy of an affidavit charging the accused with the commission of a certain act, and by the certificate of the governor of ihat state that such act constitutes a crime under the laws of that state, makes at least a prima facie showing that the accused is charged with a crime in the state from which he fled, and authorizes his arrest. Tullis v. Fleming, (1879) 69 Ind. 15. See also Drinkall v. Spiegel, (1896) 68 Conn. 441.

When a warrant recites that the person accused stands charged with the commission of acts which constitute a crime in the state of refuge, it will be presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that the laws of the demanding state are the same, and that crime known to the laws of the demanding state is charged. In re Hooper, (1881) 52 Wis. 699.

A fugitive having been properly charged with a crime under the laws of the demanding state, it is not necessary to go into the question whether such crime is a crime under the laws of the state to which he has fled. Johnston 1. Riley, (1853) 13 Ga. 97; Matter of Hayward, (1848) 1 Am. L. J. N. S. 271.

Legally well founded. The statute does not confer upon the authorities of the state in which the person may be found the power to try and determine whether the charge may have been legally well founded or not ; that is left to be determined by the authorities of the state having jurisdiction of the crime. People v. Byrnes, (1884) 33 Hun (N. Y.) 98.

Question of law. - Before the governor of a state, of whom a demand has been made for the surrender of a supposed fugitive from justice, can lawfully comply with such demand, it must appear that the person demanded is substantially charged with a crime against the laws of the state from whose justice he is alleged to have fled, and as this is a question of law, it is always open upon the face of the papers to judicial inquiry, on an application for a discharge under a writ of habeas corpus. Roberts 1. Reilly, (1885) 116 U. S. 80.

Prosecution must have commenced. — Under the state statute the governor has no authority to surrender a fugitive, unless he has been “ charged " with crime in the state from which he fled. It was not intended thin! a person might be arrested upon an affidavit or information charging him with the commission of a crime in another state, when no prosecution had been commenced there.

EX p. White, (1875) 49 Cal. 433.

It has been said in State ?. Hufford, (1989) 28 Iowa 391, that under a state statut.. by pa in aid of the constitutional and statutory requirements of the United States, a charge

of crime against the person to be arrested and delivered up, made in the state where the offense was committed, is contemplated. The charge must be made to some court, magistrate, or officer, in the form of an indictment, information, or other accusation, known to the law of the state in which the offense was committed. See also Smith v. State, (1887) 21 Neb. 552.

There is nothing in the statute which requires that a warrant shall be issued for the fugitive upon the charge against him before his return can be demanded from the state to which he may have fled. It is the indictment or affidavit, and not the issuing of a warrant, which constitutes the charge against a fugitive upon which his return can be required. Tullis v. Fleming, (1879) 69 Ind. 15.

The finding of a bill of indictment establishes the fact that the act charged is an offense against the laws of the state. State t. Anderson, (1833) 1 Hill L. (S. Car.) 327.

An indictment must be taken as prima facie evidence that the offense charged is a crime under the laws of the state. Matter of Fetter, (1852) 23 N. J. L. 311.

The words treason, felony, or other crimes,” embrace any act forbidden and made punishable by the laws of the state making the demand, whether by common law or by statute. In re Hooper, (1881) 52 Wis. 699; State v. Stewart, (1884) 60 Wis. 587; Kentucky 1'. Dennison, (1860) 24 How. (U. S.) 66; Taylor v. Taintor, (1872) 16 Wall. (U. S.) 366; Er p. Reggel, (1885) 114 U. S. 642; Lascelles v. Georgia, (1893) 148 U. S. 537; Matter of Leary, (1879) 10 Ben. (U. S.) 197; Brown's Case, (1873) 112 Mass. 409; Morton V. Skinner, (1874) 48 Ind. 123; Matter of Voorhees, (1867) 32 N. J. L. 141; Matter of Clark, (1832) 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 212; Leary's Case, (U. S. Dist. Ct. 1879) 6 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 43; People v. Brady, (1874) 56 N. Y. 182; People v. Donohue, (1881) 84 N. Y. 438.

The words embrace every act forbidden and made punishable by the law of the demanding state, and apply as well when the offense charged is a mild misdemeanor under the law of the demanding state, as where it is a grave felony under the law of all the states. State 1. Hudson, (1893) 2 Ohio Dec. 41, 2 Ohio N. P. 1; Com. 1. Johnston, (1892) 12 Pa. (o. Ct. 263,

But in Matter of Hughes, (1867) Phil. L. (N. Car.) 57, the court said that the word “crime embraces all ofl'enses against the public of an aggravated or infamous character as distinguished from “misdemeanors." See In re Greenough, (1858) 31 Vt. 279.

The crime is any crime created by statute, in the state in which the offense is alleged to have been committed, since the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, and is not restricted to such an act as is a crime at common law. Matter of Hughes, (1867) Phil. L. (N. Car.) 57.

When court will decline to investigate guilt of accused. - Where a proper charge of crime has been presented to the court, the court i pet celine to invitirate the guilt or innorence of the prisoner. “ It would be otherwise were the arrest made upon preliminary

1.

or

form”

process, and before indictment. In that event should certify that the papers are genuine; investigation would be had, at least, to dis it is sufficient if he certifies that they are close if there be a prosecution in good faith, duly authenticated. Hackney

Welsh, and if there be probable cause to suspect the (1886) 107 Ind. 253. guilt of the party accused.” In re Roberts, Papers are sufficiently authenticated when (1885) 24 Fed. Rep. 132; U. S. v. Greene, they are so by affidavit and by the signature (1900) 100 Fed. Rep. 941.

of the prosecuting attorney. Hackney v. “When the executive of the state in which Welsh, (1886) 107 Ind. 253. the alleged offender is found is furnished Duly authenticated according to law.. with proof that he is so charged, the demand When the copy of the indictment annexed to of the state from the jurisdiction of whose the requisition purports to have been found tribunals he has absented himself should by a grand jury of the county, and to be be complied with, and the courts will not go authenticated by the attestation of the clerk behind the 'indictment aflidavit, if of that court under the seal thereof, a requiregular in form, and specifically charging the sition stating that it is " duly authenticated commission of the offense within the jurisdic according to law” is a compliance with the tion of the demanding state, to try the ques statute. Ew p. Sheldon, (1878) 34 Ohio St. tion whether a crime was in fact committed, 319. though identity will always be investigated, Duly certified as authentic."

A warand it is proper to inquire whether the pris rant sufficiently follows the statute which oner was in fact within the demanding state states that the demand was “accompanied by when the alleged crime was committed." In a copy of said affidavit, duly certified as re White, (C. C. A. 1893) 55 Fed. Rep. 54. authentic.” The statement that it was “ duly

“ Certified as authentic.” -- Where the war certified as authentic” must mean that it rant recited that it was issued upon the requi was certified according to law. Ex p. Stansition of a state executive, and that a copy ley, (1888) 25 Tex. App. 372. of the indictment of the accused accompanied No indictment annexed. Where the requisuch requisition, and that the executive of sition contains a mere recital that a duly the state asking for extradition had certified authenticated indictment is annexed, but that such copy was "in due form,” it was held there is no indictment annexed, such recital that the expression “ certified to be in due is of no effect. Ex p. Hart, (C. C. A. 1894)

was virtually the same as the expres 63 Fed. Rep. 249. sion in this section “ certified as authentic,” The absence of the state seal from the exand that, therefore, the warrant was suffi ecutive requisition will not invalidate the cient. Ex p. Reggel, (1885) 114 U. S. 642; same, provided that otherwise it is correct. Matter of Foye, (1899) 21 Wash. 250; Mat Matter of Baker, (1899) 21 Wash. 259, citing ter of Baker, (1899) 21 Wash. 259; Matter of Hibler 1. State, (1875) 43 Tex. 197. Sylvester, (1899) 21 Wash. 263.

By secretary of state. This statute is Where the requisition certified that the summary and must be strictly complied with, papers were correct copies, and where one of otherwise an executive warrant issued under the papers contained a criminal charge, which it would be absolutely void. An affidavit was indorsed “ an indictment," etc., and was authenticated by the secretary of state is not signed by a foreman of the grand jury as a authenticated in accordance with this stat" true bill,” it was held that the requirements ute, which prescribes the performance of that of this section were satisfied. State v. Justus, duty by the governor or chief magistrate. (1901) 84 Minn. 237.

Soloman's Case, (1866) 1 Abb. Pr. N. S. The objection to the surrender that the (N. Y.) 347. affidavit annexed to the requisition alleging Discretion of executive as to surrender. the prisoner to have been a fugitive from “ The executive authority, whether of the justice

inadequately authenticated, state or nation, has an ultimate discretion where the affidavit is not the only evidence whether to surrender the supposed criminal before the governor of such fact, and it being or not," and surrender is often refused, the presumption that the governor informed “ though the papers are in due form and unhimself of the law in the premises, is not impeached, if there is good reason to believe sufficient to authorize the party's release that some ulterior object or sinister design under habeas corpus. Katyuga v. Cosgrove, is concealed under the regular forms." U. (1901) 67 N. J. L. 213.

S. v. Pope, (1878) 24 Int. Rev. Rec. 29, 27 Where a requisition for surrender from Fed. Cas. No. 16,069. one state to another stated that " it appears The word dutyimplies the moral obliby the annexed papers, which I certify to be gation of a state to perform the compact in authentic and duly authenticated, that D. the Constitution when Congress should have stands charged with the crime of murder in indicated the manner in which such duty was the first degree; and there was annexed to be performed; but Congress cannot, by thereto a paper indorsed as a true bill and

any act, coerce an officer of a state. The claiming to be an indictment wherein the performance of its duty is left to its own said D. was charged with being an accessory discretion, and if it refuses such performbefore the act, it was held that, notwith ance it cannot be compelled. Kentucky v. standing it was not stated whether such Dennison, (1860) 24 How. (U. S.) 66; Taylor paper was an original indictment or a copy, 1. Taintor, (1872) 16 Wall. (U. S.) 366; the requisition was good, the authentication Matter of Manchester, (1855) 5 Cal. 237; being sufficient. Ex p. Dickson, (Indian Ter. State 1. Toole, (1897) 69 Minn. 104. See 1902) 69 S. W. Rep. 943.

also Work 1. Corrington, (1877) 34 Ohio St. The law does not require that the governor 64, 32 Am. Rep. 345.

was

The surrender of a fugitive by one state to absence of evidence to the contrary, that he another does not depend on comity. The made such findings. State v. Clough, (1902) obligation to make such surrender is imposed 71 N. H. 594. upon all states by the supreme law of the Is prima facie as to legal prerequisites. land. The duty to deliver up is complete “A warrant of extradition of the governor of even though the officers of a state have power a state, issued upon the requisition of the to refuse to do so. Com, v. Johnston, (1892) governor of another state, accompanied by a 12 Pa, Co. Ct. 263.

copy of an indictment, is prima facie eviExecutive warrant. — In order to justify an dence, at least, that the accused had been inarrest and detention of an alleged fugitive dicted and was a fugitive from justice; and, from justice there must be a charge of a when the court in which the indictment was crime against the prisoner in the state where found has jurisdiction of the offense, is suffithe crime is alleged to have been committed; cient to make it the duty of the courts of the there must, secondly, be a demand by the United States to decline interposition by writ governor of that state for the arrest and of habeas corpus, and to leave the question of detention; thirdly, the evidence on which the lawfulness of the detention of the pristhe arrest is based must be an indictment oner, in the state in which he was indicted, found in the state from which the prisoner to be inquired into and determined, in the had fled, or an affidavit made and certified first instance, by the courts of the state, by the governor of that state; and, fourthly, which are empowered and obliged, equally the prisoner should have been in the state with the courts of the United States, to where the crime was committed, and have recognize and uphold the supremacy of the fled from it. Ex p. McKean, (1878) 3 Constitution and laws of the United States." Hughes (U. S.) 23.

Whitten 19. Tomlinson, (1895) 160 U. S. 245. An executive warrant is sufficient which re When a warrant of arrest is valid on its cites, but does not set forth in full, the affi face, it is prima facie evidence that an indictdavit upon which it is issued. Where the ment was found or affidavit made in the state papers upon which the warrant of extradition making the requisition. Robinson v. Flanis issued are withheld by the executive, the ders, (1867) 29 Ind. 10; Nichols v. Cornelius, warrant itself can be looked to for the evi (1856). 7 Ind. 611. dence that the essential conditions of its The warrant of the governor is prima facie issue have been complied with. Ex p. Stan evidence, at least, that all necessary legal ley, (1888) 25 Tex. App. 372; People v. prerequisites have been complied with, and, Donohue, (1881) 84 N. Y. 438.

if the previous proceedings appear to be reguWhen the executive is not furnished with lar, is conclusive evidence of the right to a copy of either indictment or affidavit, made remove the prisoner to the state from which as required by the statute, a warrant of re he fled. Davis's Case, (1877) 122 Mass. 328. moval is void. Ex p. Hart, (C. C. A. 1894) An executive warrant is prima facie evi63 Fed. Rep. 259.

dence that all necessary prerequisites have Though there is no direct statement in the been complied with — as, that there was an warrant that the accused had fled from the affidavit or indictment emanating from the demanding state or from the justice of that authorities of the demanding state charging state, and had taken refuge in the asylum the accused with crime against the laws of state, it is sufficient when it states facts that state. Er p. Devine, (1897) 74 Miss. which clearly and unmistakably show that 715. he was a fugitive from justice within the The recitals in the warrant of the executive meaning of the Constitution and statute. Ew as to matters necessary to confer authority p. Stanley, (1888) 25 Tex. App. 372.

under the Constitution and Acts of Congress The warrant must bear upon its face the

are to be taken as prima facie true, upon a eridence that it was duly issued, and, unless return to a writ of habeas corpus. But when it recites or sets forth an indictment or affi the affidavit appears by the return or otherdavit upon which it is founded, it is illegal wise, it is competent for the court to examine . and void. In re Doo Woon, (1883) 18 Fed. it, and determine whether a crime has been Rep. 898 [citing Ex p. Smith, (1842) 3 Me legally charged. As to so examining an inLean (U. S.) 121; Ex p. Thornton, (1853) 9 dictment, quære. People 1. Pinkerton, (1879) Tex. 635].

77 N. Y. 245. See also Matter of Scrafford, Warrant need not be technical. — The ex (1891) 59 Hun (N. Y.) 320. ecutive warrant need not set forth the facts Recitals in warrant not necessary. - It is necessary to justify the detention with the not necessary under this section, in interstate specific certainty of a criminal pleading. proceedings, that the executive mandate of the "If it appears substantially from the body state surrendering the accused should recite that the right to make the arrest is justified that the executive of the demanding state upon legal grounds, it is sufficient to author either produced, or caused to be produced, a ize action of the officer to whom it is de copy of an indictment found or an affidavit livered, and to protect him in its execution.” made before a state magistrate showing that State o. Justus, (1901) 84 Minn. 237.

the person demanded is charged with having It is not essential that the warrant should committed the alleged crime, nor that a copy contain a formal statement of all the facts of such indictment or affidavit was certified upon which it is issued. If an examination as authentic by the governor of the demandof the record evidence presented to the gov ing state. Ex p. Moscato, (1895) 44 S. Car. ernor legally authorizes the finding of the 335. necessary facts, it will be presumed, in the The executive warrant need not show that

the crime charged in the indictment or affi on the ground that his power, having been davit is a crime by the law of the demanding once executed, had spent its force, or on the state. Ex p. Stanley, (1888) 25 Tex. App. ground that a forfeiture of the recognizance 372.

was an atonement for the offense. It may be Recitals conclusive. - The recitals, in a that had the prisoner been discharged for warrant of rendition, that the demand was want of prosecution, it would be in the disaccompanied by a complaint and information, cretion of the governor to refuse to order a affidavits, and warrant of arrest, are con second arrest. Matter of Hughes, (1867) clusive on a writ of habeas corpus, when Phil. L. (N. Car.) 57. not disputed. Ex p. Lewis, (1889) 79 Cal. Review of act of governor by federal court. 95.

_ “ The claim that the act of the governor of Steps to secure arrest. “As to what a state in issuing his warrant of removal is steps the governor shall take to secure the conclusive, and that the presumption is he arrest of the person demanded, and how he had the necessary papers, duly authenticated, shall satisfy himself of the identity of the per before him when he acted, cannot be assented son seized, the Act of Congress has not deter to. The act of the governor can be reviewed, mined but has left it for the states to provide and, if he has not followed the directions and such reasonable method as will best secure observed the conditions of the Constitution the discharge of the obligation imposed by and laws of the United States, pertinent to the Constitution of the United States." Rob such matters, can be set aside as void.” Ex inson v. Flanders, (1867) 29 Ind. 10.

p. Hart, (C. C. A. 1894) 63 Fed. Rep. 249. Addressed to sheriff. - The fact that the The federal court will not on a habeas warrant is addressed to the sheriff of the

corpus discharge a prisoner charged with a county, and not to the agent appointed by violation of the criminal laws of one state the demanding state, affords no reason for and apprehended in another, where it appears the discharge of the accused. State v. Clough, by the recitals contained in the warrant by (1902) 71 N. H. 594.

virtue of which he is arrested, and the record Seal of state. When the state statute re of the extradition proceedings, that no right, quires the governor's warrant to be under the privilege, or immunity secured to him by the great seal of the state, a warrant issued upon Constitution and laws of the United States which no distinct requisite of the seal can will be violated by remanding him to the be seen on the impression, is void. Vallad v. custody of the agent of the state demanding Sheriff, (1828) 2 Mo. 26.

him; and when the executive of the state, Revocation of warrant. The state govo wherein the accused is found, is satisfied of ernor may, in case a warrant has been improp the integrity of the proceedings to secure his erly issued, revoke the same, whether it has surrender, the federal courts will seek to been issued by himself or by his predecessor, uphold its proceedings carried on in apparent and even although the fugitive has been good faith, rather than seek to find excuses arrested and handed over to the authorities of to discharge the accused. Ex p. Dawson, the demanding state. Work v. Corrington, (C. C. A. 1897) 83 Fed. Rep. 306. (1877) 34 Ohio St. 64, 32 Am. Rep. 345; On habeas corpus, a federal court may State v. Toole, (1897) 69 Minn. 104, where, look into the proceedings which took place however, it was held that the warrant could before the committing magistrate, for the be revoked only prior to the removal of the purpose of determining whether the requirefugitive. See also Gaffigan v. Merrick, re ments of the law of Congress have been obported in Spear on Extradition (3d ed.) 440, served. Ex p. McKean, (1878) 3 Hughes 713; Knowlton's Case, (Colo. 1883) 5 Crim. (U. S.) 23. L. Mag. 250; Carroll's Case, Chicago Leg. N., Accused is under federal authority. Sept. 28, 1878.

Where a party is apprehended under a warSecond warrant. — The state governor may rant in interstate extradition matters, he “is issue a second warrant for the extradition of in custody under or by color of the authority the fugitive. Matter of Hughes, (1867) Phil. of the United States," and therefore the fedL. (N. Car.) 57; Ex p. Hobbs, (1893) 32 eral courts have jurisdiction upon a writ of Tex, Crim. 312, holding that such second war habeas corpus. In re Doo Woon, (1883) 18 rant may be issued without another requisi Fed. Rep. 898; In re Robb, (1884) 19 Fed. tion by the executive of the demanding state; Kurtz v. State, (1886) 22 Fla. 36; Com. v. Review by state court. A state court, as Hall, (1857) 9 Gray (Mass.) 262.

a co-ordinate branch of the government, has Prior discharge not bar to application. power to review and control the action of the Where the same charge has been already heard governor under a writ of habeas corpus, but in another state, but the matter was not ade in regard to any matter within the discretion quately considered or investigated, the dis of the governor the court has no right to charge of the accused will not be a bar to the interfere. Matter of Hughes, (1867) Phil. renewal of the application. Muller's Case, L. (N. Car.) 57. (1863) 5 Phila. (Pa.) 289, 17 Fed. Cas. No. Provisions of law complicd with. - Upon 9,913.

petition for release upon habeas corpus, if the The fact that the prisoner has been once return sets forth that the party is a fugitive delivered up, and was allowed to leave the from justice, that he is demanded as such, state to which he was sent upon entering into and is arrested and committed for the pura recognizance for his annearance, does not nose of being surrendered. the only inquiry deprive the governer of the asylum state of that can be made is whether the provisions power to order his arrest a second time, either of the Act of Congress have been complied

Rep. 26.

an

was

with. State r. Buzine, 4 Harr. (Del.) 572; from Canada into the state of New York, and State r. O'Connor, (1888) 38 Minn. 243. from there forcibly abducted, and that the Cannot eramine evidence. On habeas

governor of New York had requested the corpus the court cannot examine the evidence governor of Pennsylvania, if consistent with taken in a magistrate's court in the demand his ideas of justice and of executive power,” ing state, and review the decision of the to cause the release ” of the person kidmagistrate that a crime had been committed napped. and there was probable cause for believing Trial for different offense. -- A fugitive that the accused committed it. In re Van from justice who has been surrendered by Seiever, (1894) 42 Neb. 772.

one state of the Union to another state Indictment charges offense. — Upon thereof upon requisition, charging him with habeas corpus the court may "look into the a commission of a specific crime, has, under indictment to ascertain whether it charges the Constitution and laws of the United an offense against the laws of the state de States, no right, privilege, or immunity to be manding the surrender of the accused person, exempt from indictment and trial in the state but not to examine its sufficiency as a crim to which he is returned, for any offense other inal pleading in other respects. State v. than, or different from, that designated and v'Connor, (1888) 38 Minn. 243.

described in the requisition of proceedings. The guilt or innocence of the accused can without first having an opportunity to return not be inquired into on habeas corpus. Ex p. to the state whence he extradited. Devine, (1897) 74 Miss. 715.

Lascelles i. Georgia, (1893) 148 U. S. 537 No copy of affidarit or indictment. — The [citing with approval Matter of Noyes, relator, on a writ of habeas corpus, should (1878) 17 Alb. L. J. 407; Ham v. State, be permitted to show by any competent evi (1878) 4 Tex. App. 645; State v. Stewdence that the executive warrant was not art, (1884) 60 Wis. 587; People v. Cross, based upon a copy of an affidavit or indict (1892) 135 N. Y. 536; Com. v. Wright, ment for crime, certified to be authentic by (1893) 158 Mass. 149; In re Miles, (1875) the governor of the demanding state. Ex p. 52 Vt. 609); Carr 1. State, (1893) 104 Ala. Devine, (1897) 74 Miss. 715.

43; Williams 1. Weber, (1891) 1 Colo. App. Production of papers. A party, having the 191; Com. v. Wright, (1893) 158 Mass. 149, custody of an alleged fugitive from justice 35 Am. St. Rep. 475; State v. Patterson, cannot be obliged, on a hearing upon habeas (1893) 116 Mo. 505; State v. Walker, (1894) corpus, to produce the papers accompanying 119 Mo. 467; State 1. Glover, (1893) 112 N. the requisition of the governor of the de Car. 896; In re Brophy, (1895) 4 Ohio Dec. manding state. Matter of Sylvester, (1899) 391, 2 Ohio N. P. 230; Com. v. Johnston, 21 Wash. 263, citing Matter of Leary, (1879) (1892) 2 Pa. Dist. 673; Harland v. Territory, 10 Ben. (U. S.) 197, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,162; (1887) 3 Wash. Ter. 131. The contrary, Leary's Case, (U. S. Dist. Ct. 1879) 6 Abb. however, was held in In re Fitton, (1891) 45 N. Cas. (N. Y.) 44.

Fed. Rep. 471; State v. Hall, (1888) 40 Kan. Cannot be admitted to bail. — A person ar 338; Matter of Cannon, (1882) 47 Mich. 481; rested under a warrant of extradition cannot Ex P. McKnight, (1891) 48 Ohio St. 588; be allowed bail. Ex p. Erwin, (1879) 7 Tex. State 1. Leidigh, (1896) 47 Neb. 126; U. S. App. 288; Matter of Goodhue, (Mayor's Ct. 1'. Johnson, (1878) 1 N. J. L. J. 162, 26 Fed. 1815) 1 Wheel. Crim. (N. Y.) 427.

Cas. No. 15,487. How party brought into state not inquired A trial upon extradition is not objectioninto. — When a person is properly charged able because the indictment charged the comwith a crime, the courts will not inquire into mission of a general offense, whereas the the circumstances under which he is brought warrant upon which the rendition was obinto the state and within the jurisdiction of tained charged a distinct act connected with the court. State r. Kealy, (1893) 89 Iowa the general offense and pleaded in the indict94; State v. Ross, (1866) 21 Iowa 467; State ment as one of the steps or stages in the r. Patterson, (1893) 116 Mo. 505; Mahon v. offense laid. State 1. Meade, (1896) 56 Kan. Justice, (1888) 127 U. S. 700; Cook v. Hart, 690. (1892) 146 U. S. 183; State v. Smith, (1829) Where an accused person, against whom a | Bailey L. (S. Car.) 283, 19 Am. Dec. 679; warrant has been issued for an offense alMatter of Noyes, (1878) 17 Alb. L. J. 407;

leged to have been committed in another E p. Barker, (1888) 87 Ala. 4; U. S. v.

state, voluntarily submits to arrest and Johnson, (1878) 1 N. J. L. J. 162, 26 Fed.

waives extradition, he may be tried for any Cas. No. 15,487; In re Miles, (1875) 52 Vt. offense other than the one on which the 609; Kingen v. Kelley, (1891) 3 Wyo. 566. original warrant was issued. State r. McBut see contra, In re Robinson, (1890) 29

Naspy, (1897) 58 Kan. 691. Neb. 135; Com. v. Shaw, (Pa. 1885) 6 Crim.

The governor of one state having refused L. Mag. 245.

a warrant, the affidavit for the requisition Illegality in the mode of arrest in the state having been made before a notary public, and to which a fugitive has fled is not ground for not before a magistrate, as required by this his discharge, on habeas corpus, unless de section, and charging larceny; and the manded by the executive of the state in which

party, upon being informed that this was he was found. Dows's Case, (1851) 18 Pa. merely a formal and correctible defect, havSt. 37.

ing waived such defect in writing and conIn Norton's Case, (1884) 31 Alb. L. J. 66,

sented to go immediately, on the condition, the court in Pennsylvania released on habeas however, that he should be tried only for corpus a person beld on the charge of a crime,

larceny, it was held that, not having been when it appeared that he had been decoyed told of the governor's refusal, he could not

« PreviousContinue »