Carter v. Sheriff

• Decision Date: 07 April 1898
• Citation: 74 N.W. 745,105 Iowa 78
• Parties: CARTER v. BARLOW. SHERIFF.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

105 Iowa 78

74 N.W. 745

CARTER

v.BARLOW. SHERIFF.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

April 7, 1898.

Appeal from district court, Keokuk county; A. R. Dewey, Judge.

This is a habeas corpus proceeding, in which plaintiff alleges that he is illegally restrained by the defendant, as sheriff of Keokuk county, under and by virtue of a bench warrant issued by the district court of Keokuk county. The trial court remanded the petitioner, and he appeals. Reversed.Slater & Hunt, for appellant.

F. L. Goeldner and D. W. Hamilton, for appellee.

DEEMER, C. J.

On the 24th day of November, 1896, appellant was arrested upon a warrant issued by a justice of the peace of Iowa county upon the charge of having committed a public offense within Keokuk county, but within 500 yards of the county line. A hearing was had, and he was bound over to await the action of the grand jury of Iowa county. Subsequent to this proceeding, the grand jury of Keokuk county found an indictment against him for the identical offense that he had been held to answer for by the magistrate of Iowa county. A bench warrant issued, and defendant was arrested upon the indictment, and, at the time of filing his petition, was in the custody of the sheriff. He claims that as the committing magistrate of Iowa county first took jurisdiction of the offense, and held him to answer to the grand jury of that county, the district court of Keokuk county had no jurisdiction of him, or of the offense with which he was charged. Section 4160 of the Code of 1873 provides that “when a public offense is committed on the boundary of two or more counties, or within five hundred yards, the jurisdiction is in either county.” Jurisdiction over the person and of the offense under the showing made in this case was in either Iowa or Keokuk county. It seems to be well settled, however, that in such cases the county which first acquires jurisdiction of the person by proper proceedings retains that jurisdiction to the end. As said by this court in the case of Ex parte Baldwin, 69 Iowa, 502, 29 N. W. 428: “The court first obtaining jurisdiction of the person of the accused shall retain it, to the exclusion of the court of the other county, and shall proceed to try the case and administer justice therein.” Further it is said: “The court first acquiring authority over the accused, by his arrest, or by otherwise obtaining custody of his person through its officers, first acquires jurisdiction.” Application of these familiar rules...