People ex rel. Stilwell v. Hanley
| Decision Date | 15 July 1925 |
| Citation | 240 N.Y. 455,148 N.E. 634 |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. STILWELL v. HANLEY. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Application for habeas corpus by the People of the State of New York on the relation of P. Albert Stilwell, directed to John J. Hanley, Warden of the City Prison, Borough of Manhattan. From an order of the Appellate Division (208 N. Y. S. 921) which affirmed an order of the Special Term (124 Misc. Rep. 189, 207 N. Y. S. 176), dismissing the writ and remanding relator to custody, petitioner appeals.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
Battle, Vandiver, Levy & Van Tine, of New York City (Almuth C. Vandiver, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Joab H. Banton, Dist. Atty., of New York City (William B. Moore, Deputy Asst. Dist. Atty., of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
In December of 1924 the defendant was convicted in the Court of General Sessions, New York City, of violating section 956 of the Penal Law (Consol. Laws, c. 40), entitled ‘Hypothecation of Customers' Securities.’ He has sought his release from prison by this habeas corpus proceeding, wherein he alleges that the Court of General Sessions had no jurisdiction to try him for this offense. He raises this objection under the treaties existing between Great Britain and the United States regarding the extradition of criminal offenders.
Stilwell, Leffler & Lowe was a copartnership doing a stock brokerage business in New York City intil its bankruptcy in July, 1922. The defendant was senior member of the firm. Before its failure the firm had wrongfully sold and disposed of shares of stock in the Oklahoma Producing & Refining Corporation of America belonging to a customer named Lyendecker. For this offense the defendant was indicted for larceny in the first degree, embezzlement, also known as first degree larceny, and for violating section 956 of the Penal Law. The indictment contained three counts. The jury acquitted the defendant of the larceny counts, and found him guilty of hypothecating his customers' securities without authority.
After the firm's failure, Stilwell went to London, England, where he remained until he was extradited and brought back to New York for trial on this indictment. On the trial and by this proceeding he insists that he was not extradited for violating section 956 of the Penal Law, that it is not one of the extraditable offenses specified in the treaties between the two countries, and that therefore the Court of General Sessions had no jurisdiction to try him for such a crime.
What are the provisions of the treaties permitting the return of fugitives from justice? The Ashburton Treaty, contracted in 1842, reads:
This was supplemented in 1889 by including additional offenses and modified procedure as follows:
* * *
‘No person surrendered by or to either of the high contracting parties shall be triable or be tried for any crime or offense, committed prior to his extradition, other than the offense for which he was surrendered, until he shall have had an opportunity of returning to the country from which he was surrendered.’
In accordance with these treaty terms, the President of the United States on the 13th day of November, 1923, issued his warrant to certain named officers of the New York police force, authorizing them to receive Stilwell from Great Britain and bring him back for trial. Annexed to the warrant were all the extradition papers, including exemplified copies of the sections of the New York Penal Law under which the indictment was found; properly certified depositions of the witness, showing that these provisions of law had been violated by the defendant; also a copy of the indictment and the warrant of arrest issued thereon. The formal request of the district attorney to the Governor of the state, and the application of the Governor to the Secretary of State of the United States for the requisition of Stilwell were also a part of the requisition papers.
All of the documents were presented to the magistrate in the Bow Street Magistrate's Court, London. He examined them, read the depositions, and directed the detective from Scotland Yard, ‘who had the defendant,’ to turn him over to the United States agents. The British authorities issued a warrant for Stilwell's return, which was given to the detective from Scotland Yard. These are the facts as they appear in the record on this appeal.
When these papers were handed to the magistrate in London, what was his duty? According to the treaty he was to have the prisoner brought before him, examine the evidence of criminality to see if it would justify commitment for trial in England, if the offense had been committed there, and, if satisfied, to certify the fact to the proper executive authority so that a warrant might issue for the surrender of Stilwell.
In the performance of this duty, what did the magistrate read and examine? He had in his hands the President's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Stilwell
...him under the judgment of conviction. Upon appeal to this court we affirmed the order dismissing the writ. People ex rel. Stilwell v. Hanley, 240 N. Y. 455, 148 N. E. 634. The defendant now appeals on other grounds from the judgment of conviction. The evidence produced at the trial is suffi......