Ex parte Reggel
Decision Date | 04 May 1885 |
Citation | 29 L.Ed. 250,5 S.Ct. 1148,114 U.S. 642 |
Parties | Ex parte REGGEL |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This is an appeal from the judgment upon habeas corpus, of the Third judicial district court of Utah, remanding the appellant to the custody of the marshal of the United States, by whom he had been arrested. The arrest was made under the authority of a warrant of the governor of Utah, which recited that it had been represented by the governor of Pennsylvania that Louis Reggel stood charged in that commonwealth with the crime of obtaining goods by false pretenses from Daniel Myers and Charles Goodman; that he had fled from the justice of that commonwealth, and had taken refuge in the territory of Utah. It then proceeded: 'And whereas, said representation and demand are accompanied by an indictment found against said Reggel by the grand inquest of the said state of Pennsylvania inqui ing for the city and county of Philadelphia, in and before the court of quarter sessions of the peace for the said city and county of Philadelphia, March sessions, 1882, whereby said Louis Reggel is charged with the said crime, and an affidavit taken before a notary public of said state showing said Reggel's flight from said state to and refuge in said territory, and also the statute laws of said state defining and making said acts of said Reggel a crime, and which said indictment, affidavit, and laws are certified by said governor of Pennsylvania to be duly authenticated: you are therefore required to arrest the said Louis Reggel,' etc.
The evidence laid before the governor of Utah was entirely documentary, and embraced the following papers:
(1) The requisition, in the customary form, of the governor of Pennsylvania, requesting the apprehension of Reggel, and his delivery to the agent of Pennsylvania, and to which was annexed a copy of the indictment and other papers, certified by him to be authentic.
(2) A duly-certified copy of the indictment referred to in the foregoing requisition, as follows:
'GEORGE S. GRAHAM,
'District Attorney.'
(3) Duly-certified copies of certain provisions of the penal laws of Pennsylvania, as follows:
1 Brightly's Purd. Dig. 347, 348; Act March 31, 1860.
'If any person shall, by any false pretense, obtain the signature of any person to any written instrument, or shall obtain from any other person any other chattel, money, or valuable security, with intent to cheat and defraud any person of the same, every such offender shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction, be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, and undergo an imprisonment not exceeding three years: provided, always, that if upon the trial of any person indicted for such misdemeanor it shall be proved that he obtained the property in question in such manner as to amount in law to larceny, he...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Smith, No. 2 EAP 2019
...be found in another State. Strassheim v. Daily , 221 U.S. 280, 285, 31 S.Ct. 558, 55 L.Ed. 735 (1911) ; Ex parte Reggel , 114 U.S. 642, 651-53, 5 S.Ct. 1148, 29 L.Ed. 250 (1885) ; but see Hyatt v. New York , 188 U.S. 691, 713, 23 S.Ct. 456, 47 L.Ed. 657 (1903) (holding that a defendant cann......
-
Ullom v. Davis
... ... 35; ... Roberts v. Reilly, 116 U.S. 80, 95, 24 F. 132; 60 A ... S. R. 132; In re Tod, 12 S.D. 386, 76 A. S. R ... 616; [169 Miss. 210] Ex parte Reggell, 114 U.S. 642, 5 S.Ct ... 1148, 29 L.Ed. 250; Ex parte Edwards, 91 Miss. 621, 44 So ... The ... copy of information presented ... ...
-
California v. Superior Court (Smolin)
...121 (1907) (accused must be "substantially charged with crime against the laws of the demanding State"); Ex parte Reggel, 114 U.S. 642, 651, 5 S.Ct. 1148, 1153, 29 L.Ed. 250 (1885) (indictment accompanying the requisition was valid because it substantially charged the crime). In recognition......
-
In re Murphy
...U.S.Sts. § 5278, 18 U.S.C.A. § 662, and G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 276, § 14, as appearing in St.1937, c. 304, § 1. See Ex parte Reggel, 114 U.S. 642, 652-653, 5 S.Ct. 1148, 29 L.Ed. 250. ‘Before’ means ‘in presence of.’ In re Keller, D.C.Minn., 36 F. 681, 684;State v. Murnane, 172 Minn. 401, 404, 40......
-
Interstate Rendition Under the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act
...U.S. 80, 65 S. Ct. 291, 29 L.Ed. 544 (1885) and Hogan v. O'Neill, 255 U.S. 52, 415 S.Ct. 222, 65 L.Ed. 497 (1921). 31. Ex parte Reggel, 114 U.S. 642, 5 S.Ct. 1148, 29 L.Ed. 250 (1885); Brown v. Sharkey, 263 A.2d 104 (R.I. 1970); Ex parte Leach, 478 S.W. 2d 471 (Tex. 1972). 32. Travis v. Peo......