Barriere v. State

• Decision Date: 14 February 1905
• Parties: BARRIERE v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

39 So. 55

142 Ala. 72

BARRIERE v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 14, 1905

Appeal from City Court of Montgomery; Wm. H. Thomas, Judge.

Habeas corpus by E. Percy Barriere to obtain his discharge from arrest under extradition proceedings. From an order denying such relief, petitioner appeals. Reversed.

On the 20th day of May, 1904, the Governor of Louisiana issued a requisition upon the Governor of the state of Alabama commanding that E. Percy Barriere, the appellant in this case, be apprehended, and turned over to a certain named person as the duly authorized agent of the state of Louisiana; it being recited in the requisition that the said Barriere was charged with the crime of deserting his wife and minor child, and was a fugitive from justice from the state of Louisiana, and had taken refuge in the state of Alabama. In compliance with this requisition the Governor of Alabama issued a warrant for the arrest of said Barriere, and commanding that the officer so arresting him deliver him into the custody of the named authorized agent of the state of Louisiana. Upon the said Barriere being arrested under said warrant issued by the Governor, he filed the petition in this case, addressed to the Honorable William H. Thomas, associate judge of the city court of Montgomery, asking for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, and that upon the hearing of said writ the petitioner be discharged from custody.

The first four paragraphs of the petition for habeas corpus were as follows:

"To the Honorable William H. Thomas, Associate Judge of the City Court of Montgomery: Your petitioner, E. Percy Barriere, would respectfully represent unto your honor that he is imprisoned by Thomas J. Roche as a special agent of the state of Louisiana, and that the cause of his detention is on account of a warrant issued by R. M. Cunningham Governor of Alabama, Lieutenant Governor acting, upon a requisition issued from the Governor of Louisiana, for desertion of family, and is held by virtue of a governor's warrant, a copy of which is in the possession of defendant, a copy of which is hereto attached and made a part hereof, and marked 'Exhibit A.'

"(1) Your petitioner is illegally restrained of his liberty because the jurisdiction of the court issuing the warrant against him is not authorized by law, and has been exceeded as to matter, or place, or person.

"(2) The process of which your petitioner is held is void in consequence of the defects in the matters therein contained and in the substance thereof as required by law.

"(3) The process was issued in a case and under circumstances not allowed by law.

"(4) The process is not authorized by any judgment, order, decree, or any provision of the law."

It was further averred in said petition that the petitioner was not a resident citizen of the state of Louisiana, but resided in the state of Mississippi; that the criminal proceedings instituted against him in the state of Louisiana were fictitious; that he had not deserted his wife and child, but that his wife had abandoned him, and had sought a divorce; and that the purpose of the criminal proceeding which was the basis of the extradition was for the purpose of securing service upon him in a divorce suit filed against him by his said wife, and that he was not a fugitive from justice. The respondent demurred to the petition upon the following grounds: (1) That it is not a ground for discharge; that it seeks to inquire into the jurisdiction of the court issuing a warrant in Louisiana. (2) That it is frivolous. (3) That it seeks to have a foreign court jurisdiction inquired into by the associate judge of the city court of Montgomery. (4) That the petition on its face shows that the petitioner was held under and by virtue of a warrant issued by R. M. Cunningham, Lieutenant Governor, acting as Governor, of Alabama. (5) There is no power to go behind the affidavit and warrant issued by the court in Louisiana. This demurrer was sustained. To this ruling the petitioner excepted. On the hearing of the cause the judge of the city court denied the relief sought by the petitioner. In the order of the judge upon the hearing of said cause he requires the petitioner to give bail and fixed the amount thereof.

E. Howard McCaleb and Pearson & Richardson, for appellant.

Massey Wilson and Hill, Hill & Whiting, for the State.

ANDERSON J.

"The writ of habeas corpus is extolled by Blackstone as another Magna Charta of civil liberty. It is the most celebrated writ of English-speaking peoples. It is the process provided by law for deliverance from illegal confinement. The writ has no respect for persons. It lends itself to the humblest human being, and questions and inquires into the actions of the most exalted persons in the community and most powerful officers of government. In regard to extradition, this writ is indicated by the law itself as the special remedy available to the citizen against the misuse and abuse of that proceeding. Requisitions for persons stigmatized as fugitives from justice, when issued, as in the case at bar, on mere ex parte affidavit, and not founded upon indictment, are liable to abuse. Little care can be taken to obtain the real facts of the case by the officers issuing a requisition. Papers are prepared, and the demand issued, often in the most perfunctory manner; and it is impracticable for the Governor to whom the requisition is addressed, to inquire into the merits of the proceeding. The questions based upon affidavit are issued only in sudden emergencies, rarely after as much as four months of deliberation. The law provides for no hearing to the alleged fugitive before the executives of the two states, and seems to recognize the fact that he has no redress except in this writ of high privilege--this writ of habeas corpus." Ex parte Slauson (C. C.) 73 F. 667. The judge of the city court had the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus, and to review the proceedings under which the petitioner was held. "The act of the Governor can be reviewed, and, if he has not followed the directions and observed the conditions of the Constitution and laws of the United States pertinent to such matters, can be set aside as void. The highest as well as the most obscure official must respect the requirements of the Constitution and the laws made thereunder. The acts of the executive are subject to review by the courts by means of the writ of habeas corpus. It is not now necessary to cite authorities on this question, nor to recall incidents in English history showing that this writ will issue, no matter how obscure the prisoner, nor how great the power of the official who detains him."...