Commonwealth Ex Rel. Bucksbarg v. Good.

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
Writing for the CourtHIRT, Judge.
Citation58 A.2d 842,162 Pa.Super. 557
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH ex rel. BUCKSBARG v. GOOD.
Decision Date19 May 1948

162 Pa.Super. 557
58 A.2d 842

COMMONWEALTH ex rel. BUCKSBARG
v.
GOOD.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

May 19, 1948.


Appeal No. 26, April term, 1948, from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County at No. 703, July term, 1947. Habeas Corpus; Thomas M. Marshall, Judge.

Habeas corpus proceeding by the Commonwealth, on the relation of William H. Bucksbarg, also known as William H. Dern, against Fred W. Good, Inspector of Detectives, for release from confinement under arrest of relator as a fugitive from justice. From an order discharging relator from custody, the Commonwealth appeals.

Reversed and record remitted with directions.

Artemas C. Leslie, District Attorney, and Louis L. Kaufman, both of Pittsburgh, for appellant.

Harry A. Estep and Harry I. Glick, both of Pittsburgh, for appellee.

58 A.2d 842

Before RHODES, P. J., and HIRT, DITHRICH, ROSS, ARNOLD and FINE, JJ.

58 A.2d 843

HIRT, Judge.

A request for the extradition of the relator from this State was made by the executive authority of the State of Ohio. Accompanying the request were authenticated excerpts from the records of the demanding state to the effect that relator had been convicted there of grand larcency and sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of from one to seven years in an Ohio penitentiary. On a charge that he had escaped from confinement under the sentence imposed, the Governor of this State honored the demand and issued a warrant for the arrest of relator as a fugitive from justice and his delivery to the respondent, a duly authorized agent of the demanding state. In this habeas corpus proceeding brought by relator, following his arrest, the lower court after hearing, discharged him from custody. The Commonwealth has appealed.

The facts are not in dispute. In April 1922, relator, then but 21 years of age, stole a quantity of brass from a scrap pile on the premises of his employer in Canton, Ohio. That the amount stolen was not large may be inferred from the fact that only $22 was realized from its sale. For this offense he was charged with grand larcency and was convicted by his admission of guilt. Shortly after sentence, and probably because of it, he suffered a nervous breakdown and was transferred from the penitentiary to an Ohio State hospital off the prison grounds. On his recovery, and before the expiration of his minimum sentence, he was employed by the authorities as a guard over a group of boys in a so-called ‘Juvenile Research Building’ in the City of Columbus, not connected with the penitentiary. He lived in the building and when off duty was free to come and go as he pleased, except that he was obliged to be in his room before midnight. On a day in January 1923, little more than two months before the expiration of the term of his minimum sentence, he ‘walked away’ from the building where he was employed and never returned. This, technically, was an escape from confinement under his sentence and amounted to a prison breach. After leaving Columbus he secured employment in a number of other cities in Ohio, and more than 25 years ago came to Pittsburgh where he has since lived. The State of Ohio seeks to compel the return of relator, at age 47, for an offense committed a quarter of a century ago. The Ohio authorities apparently did not take his departure seriously at the time, for by diligence, relator, while working in Ohio, might have been located and promptly returned.

In 1930 relator married a widow with four young children and took them into his home in Pittsburgh. He reared these children to maturity as his own. They all did service in the late war. Two of them have married and have established homes of their...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 practice notes
  • Com. ex rel. Master v. Baldi
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • March 20, 1950
    ...152 Pa.Super. 167, 31 A.2d 576), or the Commonwealth as the real party in interest may appeal (see Com. ex rel. Bucksbarg v. Good, 162 Pa.Super. 557, 58 A.2d 842). Moreover, habeas corpus is a civil rather than a criminal proceeding, and relator's argument as to the limitation of the Common......
  • Murray v. Burns, No. 4468
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Hawai'i
    • August 18, 1965
    ...27 Sup.Ct.Rep. 111. There is no discretion allowed, no inquiry into motives. * * *' See also Commonwealth ex rel. Bucksbarg v. Good, 162 Pa.Super. 557, 562, 58 A.2d 842, 844; Ex parte Wallace, 38 Wash.2d 67, 68, 277 P.2d 737, 738; People ex rel. Carr v. Murray, 357 Ill. 326, 332, 192 N.E. 1......
  • Commonwealth ex rel. Master v. Baldi
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • March 20, 1950
    ...152 Pa.Super. 167, 31 A.2d 576), or the Commonwealth as the real party in interest may appeal (see Com. ex rel. Bucksbarg v. Good, 162 Pa.Super. 557, 58 A.2d 842). Moreover, habeas corpus is a civil rather than a criminal proceeding, and relator's argument as to the limitation of the Common......
  • Maldonado, In re
    • United States
    • Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
    • December 7, 1973
    ...538, 541--543, 254 P.2d 117 (1953); May v. Sexton, supra, 35 Ill.2d at 588, 221 N.E.2d 283; Commonwealth ex rel. Bucksbarg v. Good, 162 Pa.Super. 557, 560--562, 58 A.2d 842 (1948). The measure of the present facts appears by contrasting them with a very exceptional case, summarized in the m......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 cases
  • Com. ex rel. Master v. Baldi
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • March 20, 1950
    ...152 Pa.Super. 167, 31 A.2d 576), or the Commonwealth as the real party in interest may appeal (see Com. ex rel. Bucksbarg v. Good, 162 Pa.Super. 557, 58 A.2d 842). Moreover, habeas corpus is a civil rather than a criminal proceeding, and relator's argument as to the limitation of the Common......
  • Murray v. Burns, No. 4468
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Hawai'i
    • August 18, 1965
    ...27 Sup.Ct.Rep. 111. There is no discretion allowed, no inquiry into motives. * * *' See also Commonwealth ex rel. Bucksbarg v. Good, 162 Pa.Super. 557, 562, 58 A.2d 842, 844; Ex parte Wallace, 38 Wash.2d 67, 68, 277 P.2d 737, 738; People ex rel. Carr v. Murray, 357 Ill. 326, 332, 192 N.E. 1......
  • Commonwealth ex rel. Master v. Baldi
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • March 20, 1950
    ...152 Pa.Super. 167, 31 A.2d 576), or the Commonwealth as the real party in interest may appeal (see Com. ex rel. Bucksbarg v. Good, 162 Pa.Super. 557, 58 A.2d 842). Moreover, habeas corpus is a civil rather than a criminal proceeding, and relator's argument as to the limitation of the Common......
  • Maldonado, In re
    • United States
    • Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
    • December 7, 1973
    ...538, 541--543, 254 P.2d 117 (1953); May v. Sexton, supra, 35 Ill.2d at 588, 221 N.E.2d 283; Commonwealth ex rel. Bucksbarg v. Good, 162 Pa.Super. 557, 560--562, 58 A.2d 842 (1948). The measure of the present facts appears by contrasting them with a very exceptional case, summarized in the m......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT