Ex parte Schorer

• Decision Date: 17 April 1912
• Citation: 195 F. 334
• Parties: Ex parte SCHORER.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin

195 F. 334

Ex parte SCHORER.

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin.

April 17, 1912

E. J Henning, for petitioner.

H. H Barnum and Emil Wallber, for the German government.

GEIGER District Judge.

On April 12th Michael Schorer filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, representing that the United States marshal for this district holds him in custody under and by virtue of a temporary warrant of commitment issued by Francis Bloodgood, United States commissioner for the Eastern district of Wisconsin, and has so held him since the 16th day of March, 1912. Upon such petition a writ of habeas corpus was issued as well as a writ of certiorari directed to the marshal and to the commissioner, respectively, commanding the production of the petitioner and the certification of the records in the proceedings before the commissioner referred to in the petition.

It appears from the records in former proceedings, as well as from statements made on the hearing of the present proceeding, that the petitioner was arrested last November as an alleged fugitive from justice from the Kingdom of Bavaria charged with the crime of forgery and the utterance of forged acceptances or bills of exchange. Upon this proceeding the petitioner was committed to jail to await the action of the Executive Department of the United States. He was subsequently discharged on habeas corpus proceedings, on the ground that the commissioner entertaining the proceedings had not been authorized to act as extradition commissioner. Upon his discharge the petitioner was taken into custody by an immigration inspector of the United States, and proceedings were had for his deportation upon the ground that he is an undesirable immigrant, having committed crime in Germany. Testimony having been taken, the matter was referred to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, upon whose recommendation he was discharged. He was again arrested upon second extradition proceedings, again committed to jail to await the action of the Executive Department, and again sued out a writ of habeas corpus, which was heard before Judge Sanborn, who rendered a decision March 4, 1912, discharging the petitioner upon the two grounds that the record failed to disclose an executive mandate of requisition, and that it fails to show a sufficient prima facie case of forgery under the law of Wisconsin.

It may be questioned whether the facts last above recited are in any way pertinent upon the present hearing, for the reason that the returns of the marshal and the commissioner to the writs addressed to them, respectively, are not met by any pleading other than a formal traverse or are accepted as verities in the proceeding. However, such facts were referred to and will aid a consideration of the contentions made by the parties on this particular hearing.

On March 16th, after the discharge of the petitioner, he was again arrested upon a warrant issued by Commissioner Bloodgood pursuant to a complaint made before him by the consular agent of the German government, charging the crime of forgery and utterance of forged acceptances and bills of exchange by the petitioner in the Kingdom of Bavaria, Germany, at the times and under the circumstances detailed in said complaint. The marshal makes return to the writ of habeas corpus that he holds the petitioner by virtue of a warrant or mittimus, of which a copy is also returned, and the commissioner has certified the records of the proceedings before him, from which the following facts appear:

First. That on March 16th the complaint referred to was filed, the complainant examined on oath, from which it appeared that the offenses alleged had been committed. That the petitioner was taken into custody by the marshal, brought before the commissioner, advised of the contents of the complaint, and requested a postponement to enable him to procure counsel. The counsel for the German Empire, being present, stated that additional proofs from Bavaria referred to in the complaint could not be transmitted in less than 14 days. Whereupon the commissioner ordered an adjournment of the proceeding until March 26th, the accused being in the meantime committed to the Milwaukee county jail by virtue of the mittimus issued to the marshal.

Second. On March 26th, the matter being again called before the commissioner, the German Empire and the accused appearing by their respective counsel, at this time counsel for the petitioner and accused moved for a dismissal of the proceeding on the ground that the accused had been discharged on habeas corpus on the identical charge now made, on the ground that the examination did not show sufficient proof to justify commitment, and that the accused is not subject to rearrest on the mere allegation in the complaint that the German government has made representations that it will forward new evidence of forging and uttering forged bills of exchange by the accused and an associate also formerly arrested. At this time it was also contended that advice as to the exact character of...