Ex parte Moebus
| Citation | 66 A. 641,74 N.H. 213 |
| Parties | Ex parte MOEBUS. |
| Decision Date | 02 April 1907 |
| Court | Supreme Court of New Hampshire |
Habeas corpus by Henry E. Moebus. Petition denied.
For former report, see 73 N. H. 350, 62 Atl. 170.
The petition alleges substantially the same facts set forth in Petition of Moebus, 73 N. H. 350, 62 Atl. 170, and claims: (1) That "under the extradition laws of the states of New York and New Hampshire, I was entitled to a hearing before my committal to the state prison, no matter on what charge my extradition had been obtained, and no matter on what other ground or for what other reason the authorities of the state of New Hampshire purposed to hold me, and no matter whether or not I was the individual named in the extradition papers"; (2) "that, having been extradited on the charge of breaking prison (Pub. St. 1901, c. 285, § 13), I was entitled to a hearing on that charge, and, no hearing having been had, I am entitled to be liberated, unless a hearing can now legally be had on that charge, when then all the questions of fact involved, including the question of identity, could be submitted to the decision of a jury"; and (3) that "I am not the man Mark Shinborn, who is alleged to have made his escape from the state prison in 1806, but I refuse now, as heretofore, to submit the question of identity to the decision of a judge, under any summary proceeding, on the ground that I was entitled to a trial by jury upon an indictment found by the grand jury on the specific charge of crime on which I was extradited from the state of New York." The warden of the state prison filed an answer, stating, in substance, that the petitioner is in fact one Mark Shinborn, who was convicted at the October term, 1805, of the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Cheshire of the crime of breaking and entering and stealing, and was sentenced to confinement in the state prison for the term of 10 years; that on February 27, 1800, he was committed to the prison to perform the sentence; that on December 3, 1866, he escaped from the prison and fled from the state; that upon extradition proceedings he was brought from the state of New York, and on November 8, 1900, was recommitted to the prison to serve the unexpired term of his sentence, which has not yet expired; and that the warden holds the petitioner by virtue of the original process of commitment
Henry E. Moebus, pro se. Edwin G. Eastman, Atty. Gen., for the State.
In this proceeding the petitioner seeks to raise the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lewis, 250
...and which remove the illegalities, or supply the defects, on account of which the order of discharge was granted.' Petition of Moebus, 74 N.H. 213, 66 A. 641 (1907), referred to by the Court of Appeals, and the prior decision, Petition of Moebus, 73 N.H. 350, 62 A. 170 (1905), relate to the......
-
Grote v. Powell
...will ordinarily be summarily disposed of." Gobin v. Hancock, 96 N.H. 450, 451, 78 A.2d 531, 532 (1951) (quoting Petition of Moebus, 74 N.H. 213, 215, 66 A. 641, 642 (1907)). Other jurisdictions provide that a court need not hold an evidentiary hearing on a petition for a writ of habeas corp......
-
State v. Widi
...does not materially differ from the claim that was raised and dismissed in his motion to correct the record. Cf. Petition of Moebus, 74 N.H. 213, 214–15, 66 A. 641 (1907) (denying petition for writ of habeas corpus where it was clear on the face of the petition that the facts and allegation......
-
Sheehy v. Sheehy
...of the right to the custody of a minor. When used for the former purpose, the doctrine of res adjudicata does not apply. Petition of Mcebus, 74 N. H. 213, 66 A. 641. But "when the writ of habeas corpus is used, not as a writ of liberty in the strict and original sense of the term, but only ......