Getzendanner v. Hiltner

• Citation: 185 S.E. 694,117 W.Va. 418
• Decision Date: 05 May 1936
• Docket Number: 8378.
• Parties: GETZENDANNER v. HILTNER.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

185 S.E. 694

117 W.Va. 418

GETZENDANNER v. HILTNER.

No. 8378.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

May 5, 1936

Submitted April 22, 1936.

Syllabus by the Court.

A person who, while present in one state commits an overt act in furtherance of a crime, which is afterwards consummated, and departs to another state, becomes a fugitive from justice from the former state, upon completion of the offense, in contemplation of section 2 article 4, of the Federal Constitution.

Error to Circuit Court, Jefferson County.

Habeas corpus proceeding by Henry C. Getzendanner against Roy M Hiltner. To review a judgment, relator brings error.

Affirmed.

D Grove Moler, of Martinsburg, for plaintiff in error.

Sherman P. Bowers, of Frederick, Md., for defendant in error.

LITZ Judge.

This is a habeas corpus proceeding in which relator, Henry C. Getzendanner (a citizen and resident of Jefferson county, W. Va.), seeks release from allegedly illegal restraint under a fugitive warrant issued by the Governor of West Virginia in response to a requisition of the Governor of Maryland based upon an indictment in the circuit court of Frederick county, Md., charging relator with false pretense.

The crime, which is charged to have been committed June 18, 1935, consisted in an allegedly unauthorized sale and delivery by relator to Frederick County Products, Inc., a Maryland corporation, of thirty-four cattle belonging to third parties for which the company issued to him its check for $2,877.25, drawn on a local bank, in payment of the purchase price thereof; the owners having recovered the cattle from the corporation after the check had been paid and charged to its account. On or about the 1st of June, 1935, relator, while in Frederick county, Md., representing himself to be the owner thereof, proposed to sell the corporation the cattle which were then on his farm in Jefferson county. A date was fixed for an agent of the corporation to meet relator in Jefferson County for the purpose of purchasing the cattle. A few days later, after returning to his home in Jefferson county, relator wrote the company, requesting that it send a representative, as agreed, to purchase the cattle. On the 10th of June, relator sold the cattle in Jefferson county to the president of the corporation, and agreed to deliver them in Frederick county, Md., where they would be weighed and the purchase price paid. On June 12th the relator, through an agent, delivered the cattle, according to appointment, in Frederick county, Md., and, after they had been weighed, the corporation issued its check to relator, payable on a bank in Frederick county, Md., for the purchase price thereof. On June 18th the check was paid by the bank and charged to the account of the corporation. Relator was not in Maryland on that date.

Counsel for relator contends that, as the relator was not in Maryland at the time the crime is alleged to have been committed, he is not a fugitive from justice from that state within the meaning of section 2, article 4, of the Federal Constitution; and in support of this contention relies upon State v Caverly, 51 N.H. 446; Ex parte Shoemaker, 25 Cal.App. 551, 144 P. 985, and other authorities. In none of the cases cited, however, does it appear that the crime charged therein had been...