Bell v. Corless
| Decision Date | 14 March 1921 |
| Docket Number | 3577 |
| Citation | 57 Utah 604,196 P. 568 |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
| Parties | BELL v. CORLESS, Sheriff |
Appeal from District Court, Third District, Salt Lake County; H. M Stephens, Judge.
Habeas corpus by Mike Bell against John S. Corless, Sheriff of Salt Lake County. From judgment denying relator's application for discharge, he appeals.
AFFIRMED.
Walton & Walton and J. W. Rozzelle, all of Salt Lake City, for appellant.
Ben E Roberts, of Salt Lake City, for respondent.
One Mike Bell, hereinafter called appellant, obtained a writ of habeas corpus from the district court of Salt Lake county upon the alleged ground that he was being restrained unlawfully of his liberty by the defendant as sheriff of said county. The defendant, in due time, made return to the writ, in which it was made to appear that the defendant held appellant as an alleged fugitive from justice upon a warrant of arrest issued by the Governor of this state, which was based upon a requisition or demand of the Governor of the state of Idaho. Upon a hearing and the return of the defendant the district court entered judgment denying the appellant's application for discharge from said imprisonment and remanded him to the custody of the defendant. The appeal is from that judgment.
The only error assigned, stating it in the language of the assignment, is:
"The court erred in its judgment in refusing to discharge the appellant and in remanding him to the custody of the respondent."
It must be obvious to all that such an assignment would embrace every possible ground of error, whether the same had been raised in the court below and considered by it or not. Ordinarily, this court requires that the specific rulings, acts, or omissions of the court that are relied on as error be pointed out in the assignment of errors. In view, however, that this is a habeas corpus proceeding, and that this court has original concurrent jurisdiction with the district courts in such proceedings, we shall consider all questions that are fairly raised by appellant, and which have been argued by counsel for both sides, although not specifically assigned.
The first objection urged is that the requisition is insufficient, in that it is not properly authenticated, and that the papers referred to as the "annexed papers" are not properly identified and certified by the Governor of Idaho. The Governor of Idaho in his requisition, certifies as follows:
"Whereas, it appears from the annexed papers, duly authenticated in accordance with the laws of this state, that Mike Bell stands charged," etc.
Then follows a statement showing the offense or crime with which appellant is charged. That statement is followed in the usual form by requesting the arrest of the accused and his delivery to the person named as agent of the state of Idaho. The requisition is duly signed by the Governor of Idaho and is attested by the Secretary of State under the great seal of the state of Idaho. The so-called "annexed papers," which are attached to the requisition by means of brass fasteners, are the following (1) The appointment by the Governor of Idaho of one John W. Norton as the agent of the state of Idaho to receive said Mike Bell as a fugitive from justice. The appointment is signed by the Governor of Idaho and is attested by the Secretary of State. (2) An application by the prosecuting attorney of Bonneville county, Idaho to the Governor of Idaho for the requisition, in which the grounds for the requisition are fully stated. This application is duly authenticated by the clerk of the district court of Bonneville county, Idaho with the seal of said court attached. (3) The complaint charging Mike Bell with the crime of highway robbery committed by him on the 25th day of September, 1920, in the county of Bonneville, state of Idaho. The complaint is certified to as authentic by the probate judge of Bonneville county, before whom it was sworn to. (4) A warrant for the arrest of Mike Bell, issued by the probate judge of Bonneville county, Idaho certified to as genuine, with the seal of said court attached. (5) The affidavit of A. E. Owen, the prosecuting attorney of Bonneville county, Idaho in which affiant states under oath that Mike Bell stands charged with the crime of highway robbery in Bonneville county, Idaho; that the offense is a felony under the laws of said state; that Mike Bell is a fugitive from justice, and that the application for extradition is made in good faith, and not for improper purposes. (6) The affidavit of C. E. Cribble, deputy sheriff of Bonneville county, Idaho stating under oath that Mike Bell stands charged with the crime of highway robbery in Bonneville county aforesaid, and that he is a fugitive from justice. Both of the foregoing affidavits are sworn to before the probate judge of Bonneville county, state of Idaho and the seal of said court is attached thereto. (7) A certificate of the clerk of the district court of Bonneville county, Idaho certifying to the genuineness of the signature of A. E. Owen, and that he is the prosecuting attorney of said county. This certificate has the seal of the district court of Bonneville county attached. The defendant also produced the warrant of arrest issued by the Governor of the state of Utah which is not assailed. It will thus be seen that the so-called "annexed papers" attached to the requisition are all duly authenticated by the proper officials, with the official seals attached. The special objection urged by counsel for appellant, however, is that the foregoing papers are not sufficiently authenticated or certified by the Governor of Idaho for the reason that in the requisition he merely stated "whereas, it appears from the annexed papers duly authenticated in accordance with the laws of this state that Mike Bell stands charged," etc.; that he does not certify to the genuineness of the annexed papers. It may not be inappropriate to state here that in view that the federal laws respecting interstate rendition or extradition have been in force for upwards of a century and a quarter, and hence have been passed on almost innumerable times by the courts during that time, it seems almost incredible that there still should be doubt and controversy respecting the forms that are used by the governors in the several states in making requisition for the return of fugitives from justice. While the federal statute does not prescribe any form of authentication, yet the intention of the statute that there should be proper identification and authentication of the papers forming the basis of the request is clear, and the only question here is whether the provisions of the statute have been substantially complied with. The question...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martz, In re
...the purposes of the affidavit referred to in the federal statute and is sufficient both in form and in substance.' Bell v. Corless, 57 Utah 604, 196 P. 568, at pages 570, 571. 'We next take cognizance of appellant's assignments of error to the effect that the California warrant of arrest wa......
-
Olson v. Thurston
...the purposes of the affidavit referred to in the federal statute and is sufficient both in form and in substance." Bell v. Corless, 57 Utah 604, 196 P. 568, 571 (1921). As the language of the Uniform Act makes clear, "(t)he indictment, information or affidavit made before the magistrate mus......
-
Applications of Williams
...and the single claim of error fairly appearing and having been briefed and argued by both sides, we will consider the same. Bell v. Corless, 57 Utah 604, 196 P. 568. The requisitions of the Governor of Oregon do not contain copies of warrants of arrest of the appellants and do not show whet......
-
Hayes v. O'Connell, 28964
...of a state within the requirements of the federal statute and that the same was sufficient as a basis for extradition. Bell v. Corless, 57 Utah 604, 196 P. 568. Petitioner points out, however, that Section 548.031 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., relating to extradition prohibits the Governor of Missou......