Eaton v. State of West Virginia

• Decision Date: 16 November 1898
• Docket Number: 282.
• Citation: 91 F. 760
• Parties: EATON v. STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

91 F. 760

EATON v. STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA.

No. 282.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

November 16, 1898

W. W Arnett, for plaintiff in error

John A Howard and Frank W. Nesbitt, for the State of West Virginia.

In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of West Virginia.

A writ of habeas corpus was granted by a judge of the circuit court on the petition of William Eaton to inquire into the legality of his detention by the authorities of West Virginia. From a judgment remanding the petitioner to the custody of the state officers, he brings error.

Before SIMONTON, Circuit Judge, and PAUL and WADDILL, District Judges.

WADDILL District Judge.

This case comes before us upon a writ of error to a judgment of the circuit court of the United States for the district of West Virginia, rendered on the 14th day of April, 1898 declining to release the plaintiff in error from the custody of the sheriff of Ohio county, in said state, pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus theretofore regularly awarded by one of the judges of said court.

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus, duly sworn to, was filed October 1, 1897, and is as follows:

'Your petitioner, William Eaton, respectfully states to your honor that he is 'detained, confined, and restrained of his liberty' by J. C. Richards, sheriff of Ohio county, West Virginia, in the jail of said county, at Wheeling, West Virginia, 'without authority of law,' as also 'without due process of law.' He further represents, states, and avers that he is a citizen of the city of Chicago, in the state of Illinois; the he was brought to West Virginia in compliance with a mandate or warrant issued by the governor of Illinois, in obedience to a requisition issued by the chief executive of the state of West Virginia, on a charge of being a 'fugitive from justice' on account of the crime being alleged against him, your petitioner, with having set fire to certain articles, at the time of the fire insured, with intent to defraud and injure the 'Philadelphia Fire Association.' Further, petitioner positively affirms and emphatically declares that he was not, at the time of said alleged fire or burning, within the limits of the state of West Virginia. Wherefore, your petitioner prays your honor to grant him the writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, that the cause of his detention and confinement may be inquired into; and your petitioner prays that he may be discharged and released from the detention, confinement and restraint of his liberty 'without due process of law,' and without authority of law, as aforesaid. And your petitioner will ever pray,' etc.

Upon this petition, his honor, Judge Jackson, awarded the writ, making it returnable before the circuit court of the United States for said district on the 12th day of October, 1897, and the same was duly issued, and on the day of its return the sheriff made, under oath, the following response:

'H. C. Richards, sheriff of Ohio county, West Virginia, makes return to the writ of Habeas corpus issued by the Honorable John J. Jackson, judge of said court, on the 1st day of October, 1897, and for answer thereto says: He now brings the body of the said William Eaton into court here, and says it is not true, as alleged in the petition, that the said Eaton is detained, confined, and restrained of his liberty without authority of law, or without due process of law; but this respondent says he detains the said William Eaton by the authority of certain orders of the criminal court of Ohio county, West Virginia, which court is a court of record, and of competent general criminal jurisdiction in the county of Ohio and state of West Virginia. A duly-certified copy of the said orders of the said court is hereto annexed, marked 'Exhibit A of Sheriff's Return,' and is intended to be read as part of this return as fully as if herein set forth. And, now, having made full and complete return to the said writ, this respondent prays that the said William Eaton be remanded to his custody, custody, in the jail of Ohio county, that the writ be dismissed, and that this respondent be allowed his costs in this behalf expended.'

Exhibit A, referred to in the sheriff's return, contained the record and proceedings of the criminal court of Ohio county, W.Va., showing the indictment, trial, and conviction of the petitioner, and his sentence to 10 years' imprisonment in the state penitentiary of that state, for the offense for which he was extradited, and that he was indicted on the 3d of May, 1897, and convicted on the 25th of September, 1897, five days before the filing of the petition for a habeas corpus. In response to this return, the plaintiff in error here, under oath, filed the following answer:

'Petitioner, William Eaton, for answer to return made by H. C. Richards to the writ of habeas corpus, says, notwithstanding return, that he (petitioner Eaton) is held in custody under the judgment or sentence of conviction of the criminal court of Ohio county, West Virginia; says that said judgment or sentence is not operative and valid against him, petitioner, because he says that said court got control of his person otherwise than by due process of law,' in this, to wit: 1. He (petitioner) was prevented, when arrested in Chicago by the agent of West Virginia, from showing by writ of habeas corpus, which he requested permission to do, that he was not in West Virginia when the offense with which he was charged was committed, and because as a fact he was not in the state of West Virginia when said crime was committed, and this he is ready to verify. Wherefore petitioner says such judgment is invalid.'

Whereupon the court, on said day of October, 1897, after reciting that the body of the petitioner had been brought before it, and the return to said writ duly made, and that said court had partly heard and considered the questions involved in the case, and that it was suggested that there was certain evidence which it was necessary to produce for a full disposition of the case, ordered that the petitioner be remanded to the custody of the said sheriff, to be held and detained by him until the final hearing of the questions arising upon said application. No further order seems to have been entered, or proceedings had, in the case until the entry of the final order complained of on the 14th of April, 1898.

Upon this statement of the proceedings, it would appear that the lower court had before it only the petition, the officer's return to the writ, with the exhibit therewith, and a reply to the officer by the plaintiff in error. Certainly this is all that the record, as presented to us, shows, and upon such showing we would be clearly justified in affirming the action of the lower court without going further. This, however, we have determined not to do, as the case is an important one, involving the liberty of a citizen; and from the admissions of counsel in argument it seems that other evidence was adduced before the lower court. The plaintiff in error avers in his petition that the 'is detained, confined, and restrained of his liberty by H. C. Richards, sheriff of Ohio county, West Virginia, without authority of law,' also 'without due process of law,' and that he is a citizen of the state of Illinois, and was brought hither from said state as a 'fugitive from justice,' pursuant to a warrant issued by the governor of Illinois in obedience to a requisition issued by the chief executive of the state of West Virginia, charged with setting fire to certain property in order to secure the insurance thereon in the state of West Virginia. And the said petitioner avers and declares that he was not, at the time of the alleged fire, within the limits of the state of West Virginia. In the answer to the officer's return, filed as aforesaid, petitioner further avers that the judgement and sentence of the criminal court of Ohio county, W. Va., under which he is held, is not operative and valid against him, because the court got control of his person otherwise than by 'due process of law,' in this to wit: That he (petitioner) was prevented, when arrested in Chicago by the agent of West Virginia, from suing out a writ of habeas corpus, which he requested permission to do; that he was not in West Virginia when the offence of which he was charged was committed; and that he was not, as a matter of fact, within said state.

We will first consider the legality of the extradition proceedings whereby petitioner was removed from the state of Illinois to the state of West Virginia for trial. The provision of the constitution of the United States, article 4, Sec. 2, cl. 2, declares that 'a person charged in any state with treason, felony or other crime, who shall flee from justice and be found in another state, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the cause. ' Pursuant to this clause of the constitution, congress, by act of 1793 (1 Stat. 302), provided for the extradition of criminals from one state to another, which act has since been continued in force, and now constitutes sections 5278 and 5279 of the Revised Statutes. In considering this clause of the constitution and the act aforesaid, Chief Justice Taney, in ...