Ex parte Walters
| Decision Date | 12 January 1914 |
| Docket Number | 17120 |
| Citation | 64 So. 2,106 Miss. 439 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | EX PARTE W. C. WALTERS |
APPEAL from the circuit court of Pearl River county, HON. A. E WEATHERBY, Judge.
Habeas corpus by W. C. Walters. From a judgment dismissing the petition and ordering the relator into custody he appeals.
The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.
Affirmed.
Dale & Rawles, attorneys for appellant.
Geo. H Ethridge, assistant attorney-general, for the state.
The record has been lost in this case.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the circuit court of Marion county denying the relief prayed for by relator, William C Walters, dismissing his habeas corpus petition, and ordering him delivered to the authorized agent of the state of Louisiana to be conveyed to that state to answer the charge of kidnapping.
On April 22, 1913, an affidavit was made in the court of the city judge of Opelousas, in the parish of St. Landry, and state of Louisiana, charging William C. Walters with kidnapping Robert Dunbar, Jr., a boy five years of age. The offense was alleged to have been committed on August 23, 1912. A warrant of arrest was immediately issued by the city judge, and on the same day application for requisition was made to the governor of Louisiana. On April 23, 1913, the governor of Louisiana issued his requisition to the governor of Mississippi. Therein the charge against relator is shown, and it is alleged that he has fled from the state of Louisiana and taken refuge in the state of Mississippi, and demand is made that he be apprehended and delivered to the authorized agent of Louisiana. On June 8, 1913, the governor of Mississippi, in response to the requisition upon him by the governor of Louisiana, issued a warrant for the arrest of relator and his delivery into the custody of the agent of the state of Louisiana.
All of the papers above referred to are fully presented in the record. They are regular in form and sufficient.
In his petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed June 18, 1913, relator alleged that he had not violated any criminal law of the state of Louisiana, was not in the state at the time when the offense was charged to have been committed, was not a fugitive from justice of that state, and was unlawfully imprisoned and restrained of his liberty. He also alleged that there was then pending against him in Marion county, Mississippi, an affidavit charging him with the offense of kidnapping in the state of Mississippi, and that he was not subject to be returned to the state of Louisiana for trial because he was being held to answer for the alleged violation of the criminal laws of Mississippi. The agent of the state of Louisiana, replying to the writ of habeas corpus, denied the right of relator to the writ, and presented with his reply all the proceedings leading up to the issuance of the warrant as herein referred to. Thereupon relator filed a rejoinder to the reply of the agent of Louisiana in which he alleged that the governor of Mississippi did not pass "upon the question of whether or not W. C. Walters was, at the time of the commission of the offense alleged, present in the state of Louisiana and afterwards fled from the state of Louisiana," and he filed with his rejoinder a copy of a paper which he claims is a written opinion of the governor of Mississippi. The case then proceeded to trial, and relator introduced a number of witnesses whose testimony showed that he was in Mississippi on and about the time when the kidnapping was charged to have taken place in Louisiana. Testimony introduced by the agent of Louisiana, the demanding state, showed that relator, W. C. Walters, was in Louisiana on and about the time when the child was kidnapped, and that he was seen near the place where the child disappeared on the 24th of August, 1912, being the next day after the disappearance.
The interstate extradition of criminals is governed by the laws of the United States. The Federal Constitution and statutes must be looked to for authority in extradition matters. Clause 2 of section 2 of article 4 of the Constitution of the United States reads: "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 crime." Following this constitutional provision is section 5278 of the Federal Revised Statutes (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, 3597), which is as follows:
The state can prescribe proceedings and provide adequate means and facilities for the purpose of carrying into effect extraditions. This is done by the state of Mississippi by section 2378 of the Code of 1906, which reads: "It shall be the duty of the governor, on demand made by the executive authority of any other state, territory, or district, for any person charged, on affidavit or indictment, in such other state, territory, or district, with a criminal offense, and who shall have fled from justice, and be found in this state the demand being accompanied with a copy of the affidavit or indictment, certified as authentic by such executive authority, to cause the offender to be arrested and delivered up to the authority of such state, territory or district, for removal to the jurisdiction having cognizance of the offense, upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. Garrison
...v. Quave, 211 Miss. 398, 51 So.2d 777 (1951); Loper v. Dees, 210 Miss. 402, 49 So.2d 718 (1951); Grace v. Dogan, supra; Ex Parte Walters, 106 Miss. 439, 64 So. 2 (1913); Ex Parte Edwards, 91 Miss. 621, 44 So. 827 (1907); Ex Parte Devine, 74 Miss. 715, 22 So. 3 In the habeas corpus court it ......
-
Wright v. State, 2016–CP–00389–COA
...lack of compliance with extradition law is in the asylum state. Godsey v. Houston, 584 So.2d 389, 391 (Miss. 1991) ; Ex parte Walters, 106 Miss. 439, 64 So. 2, 4 (1914) ("A proceeding by habeas corpus in a court of competent jurisdiction is appropriate for determining whether the accused is......
-
Grace v. Dogan
...of Tennessee, and is in a sense an interstate matter, on the circumstances in this case, the law of Mississippi is controlling. Ex parte Walters, 106 Miss. 442. the United States Government has not taken any comprehensive action on this subject. But one statute has been passed by Congress p......
-
Tyler v. Pierce
...under the Federal statute, Sec. 1733, Title 28, U.S.C.A., or under the Mississippi Statute, Sec. 3981, Miss.Code 1942. Ex parte Walters, 106 Miss. 439, 64 So. 2; Bishop v. Jones, 207 Miss. 423, 42 So.2d Appellant further urges the invalidity of the extradition papers because it is not in di......