Raftery v. Bligh
Decision Date | 19 January 1932 |
Docket Number | No. 2580.,2580. |
Citation | 55 F.2d 189 |
Parties | RAFTERY ex rel. HUIE FONG v. BLIGH et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Essex S. Abbott, of Boston, Mass. (John P. Feeney and Joseph V. Carroll, both of Boston, Mass., and Edward F. Flynn, of Lynn, Mass., on the brief), for appellant.
George B. Lourie, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Joseph E. Warner, Atty. Gen., and Stephen D. Bacigalupo, Asst. Atty. Gen., on the brief), for appellees.
Before BINGHAM and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and MORRIS, District Judge.
This is an appeal from a decree of the District Court for Massachusetts, dismissing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and remanding the petitioner to custody.
March 2, 1931, Ed. J. Goff, attorney for Hennepin county in the state of Minnesota, applied to the Governor of that state for a requisition upon the Governor of the state of Massachusetts for Huie Fung, stating that he stood charged by complaint with the crime of murder in the first degree committed in the county of Hennepin, in said state, on the 8th day of June, 1930, and was a fugitive from the justice of the state and now in Massachusetts; that the fugitive was under arrest; that all the papers submitted with the application had been compared, were in triplicate, and were in all respects exact counterparts; that there was attached to his application a true and correct copy of the complaint, a correct copy of the warrant of arrest issued on the complaint, a copy of the statute upon which the charge against the accused was based, defining said crime and the prescribed punishment therefor; and requested that James L. Mullen, a police officer of the city of Minneapolis, be appointed as agent to act for the state in the matter.
On March 3, 1931, the Governor of Minnesota issued a demand on the Governor of Massachusetts, in which he stated:
March 24, 1931, the Governor of Massachusetts issued his warrant, in which, after reciting that it had been represented to him by the Governor of Minnesota that Huie Fung was charged in that state with the crime of murder in the first degree, who certified the same to be a crime under the laws of that state committed in Hennepin county in said state, that he was a fugitive from justice, that a demand "pursuant to the Constitution and Laws of the United States" had been made by the Governor of Minnesota for the arrest and delivery of Huie Fung to James L. Mullen as agent; and further stating that the representation and demand were accompanied "by certain documents whereby the said Huie Fung is shown to have been duly charged with the said crime and to be a fugitive from the justice of the State of Minnesota, and to have taken refuge in this Commonwealth, which documents are certified by the governor of the State of Minnesota to be authentic and duly authenticated," the warrant concludes: "Wherefore, you are required to arrest and secure the said Huie Fung, wherever he may be found within this Commonwealth and afford him an opportunity to sue out a writ of habeas corpus, * * * and thereafter deliver him into the custody of the said James L. Mullen to be taken back to the state of Minnesota from which he fled."
Among the documents accompanying the demand and attached thereto was a copy of a complaint subscribed and sworn to by James L. Mullen (a police officer of Minneapolis and a deputy sheriff of Hennepin county) before the judge of the municipal court of the City of Minneapolis, in Hennepin county, Minn., which complaint in substance states that on the 8th day of June, 1930, within the corporate limits of the city of Minneapolis, Hennepin county, Minn., Huie Fung, then and there being armed with a revolver loaded with gun powder and leaden bullets, then and there feloniously, intentionally, without excuse or justification, without authority of law, and with premeditated design to effect the death of a human being, one Woo Sam, did kill and murder the said Woo Sam by discharging said revolver into the body of Woo Sam, inflicting a mortal wound of which the said Woo Sam thereafter died on the 9th of June, 1930.
An affidavit of facts and circumstances in support of the complaint, subscribed and sworn to by James A. Mullen before the judge of said municipal court, also accompanied and was attached to the demand, in which it was stated:
The copy of the dying declaration of Woo Sam attached to the affidavit is in question and answer form. It was given by Woo Sam in the presence of Frank Forestal, James L. Mullen, and W. S. Wood, and, upon being transcribed, was signed by Woo Sam in their presence, who attested his signature. It appears to have been taken in the General Hospital, to which Woo Sam had been removed, at 12.30 a. m. June 9, 1930, the day on which it is alleged in the complaint that Woo Sam died, and about one hour after he was shot. It reads as follows:
The demand of the Governor of Minnesota was also accompanied by and had attached thereto two further affidavits; one subscribed and sworn to by Ark Sing, before the judge of said municipal court, in which the affiant stated that he had been a resident of the city of Minneapolis for five years; that for over four years he had been the owner of and conducted a laundry at 702 Sixth Avenue North in that city; that he had known Huie Fung for five years; that on the 3rd day of June, 1930, he saw Huie Fung walking on the sidewalk opposite his laundry in the city of Minneapolis and watched him walk up the street. There is a picture attached to the affidavit, taken in two postures,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Matter of Extradition of Demjanjuk
...establish that identification in an extradition proceeding requires only a threshhold showing of probable cause. In Raftery ex rel. Fong v. Bligh, 55 F.2d 189 (1st Cir.1932), the First Circuit reviewed a habeas corpus decision to determine whether the district court had correctly identified......
-
In re Murphy
...of Illinois v. Pease, 207 U.S. 100, 109, 28 S.Ct. 58, 52 L.Ed. 121;Reed v. United States, 9 Cir., 224 F. 378, 380, 381;Raftery v. Bligh, 1 Cir., 55 F.2d 189, 193;Lee Won Sing v. Cottone, 74 App.D.C. 374, 123 F.2d 169, 173, 174. The thirteenth request of each petitioner was rightly denied. 3......
-
Ierardi, In re
...a search or arrest warrant with which policemen and judges are most familiar. Decisions to the same effect include Raftery ex rel. Fong v. Bligh, 55 F.2d 189 (1st Cir. 1932); People v. McFall, 175 Colo. 151, 486 P.2d 6 (1971); Grano v. State, 257 A.2d 768 (Super.Ct.Del.1969); Sheriff v. Tho......
-
Cooper, In re
...151 Tex.Cr.R. 129, 205 S.W.2d 994, 995; United States ex rel. McCline v. Meyering, 7 Cir., 75 F.2d 716, 718; Raftery ex rel. Huie Fong v. Bligh, 1 Cir., 55 F.2d 189, 194; Ex parte Hart, 4 Cir., 63 F. 249, 259-260, 28 L.R.A. 801; Ex parte Morgan, D.C., 20 F. 298, 307. The affidavits do not s......