governor did not in fact issue is null and void, as the power to issue it is one which he cannot delegate. Ex parte Tod, 47 L.R.A. 566, 12 S. D. 386, 81 N. W. 637.

16. Revocation of warrant.

As ground for discharge on habeas corpus, seo HABEAS CORPUS, § 35 p.

a. The governor of a state has the right

to revoke his warrant for the surrender of

an alleged fugitive from justice, at any time before he is taken out of the state. State ex rel. Nisbett v. Toole, 38 L.R.A. 224, 69 Minn. 104, 72 N. W. 53.

than it requires its citizens to be and having brought here a citizen and resident of another state upon criminal process to answer for an offense alleged to have been committed in the state of his residence, it will not upon his discharge and before he has had an opportunity to return forcibly sion since he was thus brought here unless retain him to answer for an act of omissuch omission was knowing and wilful on his part. Re Fowles, 47 L.R.A. (N.S.) 227,

89 Kan. 430, 131 Pac. 598.

c. A person surrendered to the authorities of one state by another state or territory, on extradition proceedings, cannot,

COURTS, § 71 i.

Review of habeas corpus, see HABEAS

CORPUS, 35.

a. The authority of the courts in extra dition proceedings does not extend to inquiry into the motive or into the merits of the case in any respect. State v. Massee, 26 L.R.A. (N.S.) 781, 95 S. C. 315, 79 S. E. 97.

b. An averment that an alleged fugitive from justice, whose rendition to another state for trial is sought, was not in the tate where the crime is alleged to have been committed at the time of its alleged commission, does not raise an issue for the interposition of the courts, where the govrnor is admitted to have made an investigation of the merits of the claim for rendition, and the facts upon which he acted are not set out. Farrell v. Hawley, 70 L.R.A. 686, 78 Conn. 150, 61 Atl. 502.

c. The act of a governor in issuing a warrant of removal on requisition for a fugitive is not conclusive on the courts of the fact that he had the necessary papers duly authenticated before him. Ex parte Hart, 28 L.R.A. 801, 63 Fed. 249, 11 C. C. A. 165. d. A governor's finding in favor of the interstate rendition of an alleged fugitive from justice may be found to be insufficient to sustain the arrest, on conclusive proof before the courts that accused was not in the state where the crime was committed at the time of its alleged commission, and that there was no evidence to the contrary, or none worthy of serious consideration before the governor. Farrell v. Hawley, 70 L.R.A. 686, 78 Conn. 150, 61 Atl. 502.

e. The legality of the revocation of a parole in a foreign state is a question for the courts of that state, for they alone have the right to construe the Constitution and laws of that state. Ex parte Williams, 51 L.R.A. (N.S.) 668, 10 Okla. Crim. Rep. 344, 136 Pac. 597.

§ 18. Immunity from prosecution for different offense.

Waiver of privilege of prisoner as to, see CRIMINAL LAW, § 152 f.

a. A person extradited for a crime can not be tried for a different crime in the state to which he has been surrendered. Re Robinson, 8 L.R.A. 398, 29 Neb. 135, 45 N. W. 267.

b. A sovereign state will not be less fair

fully tried for a different crime than the one upon which his extradition was obtained, unless he voluntarily waives his privilege. Ex parte McKnight, 14 L.R.A. 128, 48 Ohio St. 588, 28 N. E. 1034.

(Annotated)

d. The right to try a criminal in a state to which he has been surrendered by another state in extradition proceedings is not limited to the offense specified in the requisition. Com. v. Wright, 19 L.R.A. 206, 158 Mass. 149, 33 N. E. 82 (Annotated); Re Flack, 47 L.R.A. (N.S.) 807, 88 Kan. 616, 129 Pac. 541 (Annotated); Ex parte Henderson, 51 L.R.A. (N.S.) 328, 27 Ñ. D. 155, 145 N. W. 574.

e. A fugitive from justice, who waives the necessity of requisition papers, and submits to an arrest upon a warrant and to be brought back into the state from which he has fled, is deemed to come back voluntarily into the jurisdiction, and may, on arrival there, be prosecuted for another offense than that described in the warrant and to respond to which he agreed to return. State v. McNaspy, 38 L.R.A. 756, 58 Kan. 691, 50 Pac. 895.

f. A prisoner charged with violation of the Federal laws, who is transferred from one state to another for trial under process from a Federal court, may be turned over to the authorities of the latter state for trial upon a charge of violation of its laws, without being afforded an opportunity to return to the former state. Re Little, 57 L.R.A. 295, 129 Mich. 454, 89 N. W. 38. § 19. Immunity from civil prosecuIn

tion.

case of international extradition, see ante, § 5.

brought into the state by requisition, as a a. Public policy does not require that one from civil prosecutions while so detained. fugitive from justice, should be exempt Reid v. Ham, 21 L.R.A. 232, 54 Minn. 305, 56 N. W. 35.

b. A person who has been brought within the jurisdiction of a court, from another state, upon a requisition, as a fugitive from justice, and has been tried for or discharged as to the offense charged against him, is not subject to arrest on a civil process until a reasonable time and opportunity have been given him to return to the state from which he was taken. Moletor v. Sinnen,

7 L.R.A. 817, 76 Wis. 308, 44 N. W. 1099. [This case seems to be in effect overruled by Lascelles v. State, 148 U. S. 537, 37 L. ed. 549, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 687.]

c. The courts are amply able to see that fraudulent use is not made of criminal process to obtain extradition merely for the purpose of muleting by subsequent civil proceedings the party so prosecuted. This duty is intrusted to the courts, and the rule is well established that in such cases of fraud the defendant will be regarded and his rights measured as though he had not come within the jurisdiction; the court not permitting its process to be used to perpetrate a fraud upon him in getting him. Ex parte Henderson, 51 L.R.A. (N.S.) 328, 27 N. D. 155, 145 N. W. 574. § 20. Rights of persons

illegally

brought within jurisdiction. Right to discharge on habeas corpus, see HABEAS CORPUS, § 20. Habeas corpus to release one held under extradition proceedings, see HABEAS CORPUS, § 35.

a. The power of a state to punish a fugitive from justice after obtaining custody of his person depends in no way on how that custody was obtained. People ex rel. Corkran v. Hyatt, 60 L.R.A. 774, 172 N. Y. 176, 64 N. E. 825, aff'd in 188 U. S. 691, 47 L. ed. 657, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 456.

b. A person will not be relieved from a prosecution for crime at the intervention of

a state from which he was abducted by violence. People ex rel. Cockran v. Hyatt, 60 L.R.A. 774, 172 N. Y. 176, 64 N. E. 825, aff'd in 188 U. S. 691, 47 L. ed. 657, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 456.

c. A fugitive from justice may be prosecuted in the state from which he fled, regardless of the means employed to secure his return. Kingen v. Kelley, 15 L.R.A. 177, 3 Wyo. 566, 28 Pac. 36.

d. That one accused of failure to support his minor child was not in the state at the time of the alleged commission of the of fense charged does not deprive its courts of jurisdiction to try him therefor, nor show such an abuse of process as to warrant a dismissal of the case, although he was surrendered by the authorities of another state without the existence of any statute requiring such action on their part. State v. Wellman, L.R.A.1918D, 949, 102 Kan. 503, 170 Pac. 1052.

e. A court does not acquire jurisdiction of a person arrested in another state for a crime and forcibly brought within the state Re Robinson, 8 without being extradited. L.R.A. 398, 29 Neb. 135, 45 N. W. 267. f. Wrongful abduction of a criminal by state officers from another state to which he has fled does not defeat the jurisdiction of the courts to try him in the state where he committed the crime. Kingen v. Kelley, 15 L.R.A. 177, 3 Wyo. 566, 28 Pac. 36.

(Annotated)