Ex parte Coy

Decision Date30 November 1887
Citation32 F. 911
PartiesEx parte COY.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Texas

The following is the petition as filed:

'To the Hon. E. B. Turner, Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Sitting in Open Session at San Antonio, Texas: Your petitioner, Juan Coy would respectfully represent that he is illegally restrained of his liberty by Nat Lewis, sheriff of Bexar county, Texas by virtue of an order of commitment issued out of the district court of Wilson county, Texas, the Hon. GEORGE MCCORMICK presiding, at the June term of said court, A.D 1887, a copy of which order is hereto attached and made a part hereof, and marked 'Exhibit B;' wherefore he prays for your honor's most gracious writ of habeas corpus, that the cause of his detention may be inquired into and that he may be discharged from said restraint, as he is in law entitled to.

Your petitioner represents that on or about the sixth day of October, 1886, when petitioner was a resident of the republic of Mexico, and not a resident of the state of Texas, nor of the United States of America, and while petitioner was pursuing his daily avocations and business in said republic of Mexico, he was by force and arms arrested under and by virtue of an extradition warrant issued by the authorities of the republic of Mexico, which extradition was based upon the requisition of the extradition agent in and for the county of Webb and state of Texas, in the United States of America, for all such purposes, and with all such powers, as are conferred on him by law, and which said requisition bears date on or about the second day of October, 1886; that, being so arrested by virtue of said extradition warrant, petitioner was forcibly removed from the republic of Mexico, and against his will transported into the said county of Webb and state of Texas, where he was delivered to the sheriff of said Webb county, who transported petitioner to Bexar county, Texas that he has ever since been held in close confinement, a part of the time in Karnes county, a part of the time in Wilson county, and the balance of the time in Bexar county, where he is now held.

That the requisition upon which he was extradited as aforesaid was based upon the allegation that petitioner was charged before D. B. BULLER, a justice of the peace of said Karnes county, Texas, with the murder of one J. L. Elder and Bud Elder; that the said affidavit, charging this petitioner with the murder of J. L. Elder and Bud Elder, was made and sworn to by I. R. Graves, who was then and there county attorney of Karnes county, Texas, and petitioner avers that his arrest and extradition was for the murder of J. L. Elder and Bud Elder, and for no other offense, and for the sole purpose of placing this petitioner on trial for the murder of said J. L. Elder and Bud Elder. And petitioner would show- hat he stands indicted in the district court of De Witt county for the murder of said J. L. Elder and Bud Elder upon two separate indictments; that he applied for and obtained bail in said two cases-- in the sum of $5,000 in the one case, and $2,500 in the other-- from the Honorable H. CLAY PLEASANTS, judge of the Twenty-Fourth judicial district, (a copy of the order is hereto attached, and marked 'D,') and that petitioner has prepared and executed the necessary bonds in said two cases in conformity with the order of said district judge, and that the sheriff of Bexar county has approved the same, and that petitioner would be now discharged upon said bail were it not for the charge of murdering one James Jackson on the twenty-seventh day of June, 1886, in the county of Wilson, Texas. And petitioner would respectfully show that he now stands charged in the district court of Wilson, by indictment, of the murder of James Jackson on the twenty-seventh day of June, A.D. 1886, and that he is here and now illegally restrained of his liberty by the said Nat Lewis, by virtue of the order aforesaid, based upon the charge of the murder of James Jackson on the twenty-seventh of June, 1886, aforesaid, and in fact the said James Jackson was killed in Wilson county on the twenty-seventh June, 1886; and thereafter at the December term of the district court of Wilson county, 1886, and in the month of December of said year, your petitioner was indicted for the murder of said James Jackson in Wilson county, charging the offense to have been committed on the twenty-seventh June, 1886. Petitioner would respectfully show that he was extradited on the sixth day of October, 1886, that the requisition for such extradition was on the second of October, 1886, and that the warrant of extradition issued on the sixth October, 1886,--which was long subsequent to the twenty-seventh June, 1886, the day and date of the killing of James Jackson, and for which your petitioner is now restrained of his liberty.

Petitioner would show that he was extradited for the murder of J. L. Elder and Bud Elder, and not for the murder of the said James Jackson; that by the between the United States and the republic of Mexico, it is provided that parties extradited shall only be tried for the particular offense named in the extradition warrant; that the charge of the murder of James Jackson was not embraced or mentioned in the extradition warrant upon which this petitioner was arrested, nor in the affidavit, nor in the requisition for said extradition warrant by which this petitioner was arrested. And petitioner avers that he has never been extradited upon the charge of the murder of said James Jackson, and his trial thereon would be in violation of the rights of this petitioner, and of the supreme law of this land, viz., the treaty between the United States and the republic of Mexico, and would be in bad faith to the republic of Mexico, which has never delivered this petitioner, or consented to deliver him, to answer the charge of the murder of James Jackson. Attached hereto marked 'Exhibit A' are certified copies of the proceedings of the extradition of the petitioner, and verified translations thereof, which are made part and parcel of this petition.

Petitioner further avers that on the eleventh inst. he applied to the Hon. GEORGE MCCORMICK, judge of the Twenty-Fifth judicial district of the state of Texas, for a writ of habeas corpus to procure his discharge from custody on account of said charge of the murder of said James Jackson, setting up the treaty stipulations between the government of the U.S. of America and the republic of Mexico, and alleging that he has not been extradited for said offense, and is therefore entitled to his said discharge. That said writ was granted, returnable before said judge on the fifth day of December next, sitting in the district court of Wilson county, Texas; but being desirous of a more speedy hearing, and the question being a federal question exclusively to be considered, petitioner abandoned said application, and filed his sworn abandonment of said application with the clerk of the district court of Wilson county on the nineteenth day of November, 1887, the said application and the said judge's order thereon being thereto filed with said clerk, with direction to issue the writ prayed for,-- a copy of which writing, abandoning said application, is hereto attached and made a part hereof, marked 'Exhibit C.'

Premises considered, petitioner prays that your honor direct the writ prayed for to issue, commanding the said Nat Lewis to produce forthwith the body of your petitioner before your honor, and that, upon the hearing thereof, your petitioner be discharged from custody, and that he have a reasonable time to return to the republic of Mexico after the final disposition of the said charges against him for the murder of J. L. Elder and the said Bud Elder, before he shall be arrested on the said charge of the said James Jackson.

TEEL & HATTON. . . . CHARLES H. MAYFIELD. E. R. LANE. . . . L. S. LAWHORN. BROWN & BEASLY. . . . . . .Attys. for Petitioner.

I, Juan Coy, being duly sworn, do say upon oath that the allegations contained in the foregoing petition are true to the best of my belief.

JUAN S. COY, Petitioner.

Sworn to and subscribed before me this twenty-second day of November, A.D. 1886.

W. G. SAMUELS, Notary Public, Bexar county.

(Indorsed:) No. 850. Ex parte Juan Coy. Application for the writ of habeas corpus to Hon. E. B. Turner. Cited November 22, 1887. W. C. ROBARD, Clerk.

The following is the statement of facts as agreed upon:

It is hereby agreed that the following are substantially all the facts of this case: (1) That for thirty years the petitioner Coy, has been a citizen of Texas. (2) That in October, 1886, he was indicted in two cases for murder, committed in Karnes county, Texas, September 6, 1886. (3) That upon said charges he was legally extradited from the republic of Mexico on October 6, 1886. (4) That in the county of Wilson he was on December 1, 1886, indicted for the murder of James Jackson, committed June 27, 1886, therein. (5) On the first two charges he was admitted to bail, but was not released by reason of his arrest and detention under the charge from Wilson county. He gave the required bail in the said first two cases, which was duly approved, and he is only now detained under the charge from Wilson county, for which he has never been extradited, and on which charge he was never arrested until after his extradition on said two first-named charges. (6) That no application was ever made for Coy's extradition on the Wilson county charge. (7)...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Knox v. The State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • February 14, 1905
    ...918, 10 Am. St. Rep. 200; United States v. Watts (1882), 8 Sawy. 370, 14 F. 130; Ex parte Hibbs (1886), 11 Sawy. 452, 26 F. 421; Ex parte Coy (1887), 32 F. 911; Commonwealth v. Hawes (1878), 76 Ky. 13 Bush 697, 26 Am. Rep. 242; Blandford v. State (1881), 10 Tex. Ct. App. 627; United States ......
  • State ex rel. Petry v. Leidigh
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • February 18, 1896
    ... ... state from which he was taken, should only have been tried ... for the offense for which he was extradited. (9 Am. & Eng ... Ency. Law, 252; State v. Hill, 40 Kan. 338; In ... re Robinson, 29 Neb. 135; In re Cannon, 47 ... Mich. 481; Ex parte McKnight, 28 N.E. 1034 [O.]; Compton ... v. Wilder, 40 Ohio St. 130; Van Horn v. Great ... Western Mfg. Co., 37 Kan. 523; United States v ... Watts, 14 F. 130; Ex parte Hibbs, 26 F. 421; Ex parte ... Coy, 32 F. 911; United States v. Rauscher, 119 U.S ... 407; State v. Vanderpool, 39 Ohio St ... ...
  • Beard v. Bennett, 7580.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • June 17, 1940
    ...1901, 180 U. S. 81, 21 S.Ct. 293, 45 L.Ed. 436; Minnesota v. Brundage, 1901, 180 U.S. 499, 21 S.Ct. 455, 45 L.Ed. 639; Ex parte Coy, D.C.W.D.Tex.1887, 32 F. 911; Shapley v. Cohoon, D.C.Mass.1918, 258 F. 752; Groseclose v. Plummer, 9 Cir., 1939, 106 F.2d 311, certiorari denied, 1939, 308 U.S......
  • In re Reinitz
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • June 24, 1889
    ... ... facts sufficient to raise an inquiry upon that subject, and ... if a case under that clause of section 753 is made out, ... habeas corpus from the federal courts is an appropriate ... remedy, though the prisoner be held under process of the ... state courts. Ex parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241; 6 S.Ct. 734; ... U.S. v. Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407, 431, 7 S.Ct. 234; ... Wildenhus' Case, 120 U.S. 1, 7 S.Ct. 385. The preliminary ... objection, therefore, presents no different question from ... that on the merits of the application. Until the decision in ... the Case of ... ...

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