Iasigi v. Van De Carr
| Decision Date | 05 April 1897 |
| Docket Number | No. 746,746 |
| Citation | 166 U.S. 391,17 S.Ct. 595,41 L.Ed. 1045 |
| Parties | IASIGI v. VAN DE CARR |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
F. R. Coudert, Jr., for appellant.
John D. Lindsay, for appellee.
Joseph A. Iasigi, a native-born citizen of Massachusetts, was arrested, February 14, 1897, on a warrant issued by one of the city magistrates of the city of New York, as a fugitive from the justice of the state of Massachusetts, charged with having committed the crime of embezzlement in that state, and upon examination was committed, February 16th, to the custody of the warden and keeper of the city prison of the city of New York to await the warrant of the governor of New York on the requisition of the executive authority of the state of Massachusetts for his surrender as such fugitive, pursuant to part 6, c. 1, tit. 4, §§ 828, 830, of the Code of Criminal Procedure of New York.
On the 18th of February he filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus in the district court of the United States for the Southern district of New York, to procure his release from custody, which averred that he was the consul general of the sultan of Turkey at Boston, duly recognized as such by the government of the United States; that the embezzlement was charged to have occurred on July 1, 1892; that he had never been indicted by a grand jury for the commission of any crime; that he was arrested while on a visit to New York, where access was impossible to his books and papers to vindicate himself; and that the proceedings before the city magistrate were without authority or jurisdiction because of his consular office.
The writ was issued, and a hearing had, and on the 12th day of March the district court entered an order dismissing the writ, and remanding Iasigi to custody. From this order an appeal was allowed to this court.
The contention of petitioner was that no court of the state of Massachusetts had jurisdiction to entertain a criminal prosecution against him by reason of the matters specified in the commitment, jurisdiction being vested, because of his official position, exclusively in the federal courts; but the conclusion of the district court rested on the ground that, whatever implications in favor of exclusive federal jurisdiction might be claimed, they were in no way incompatible with the preliminary arrest by the magistrate for removal to the state where the crimes charged against him were alleged to have been committed, and where all questions as to the proper tribunal for trial could be more properly heard and determined.
On the argument in this court it appeared from a communication from the assistant secretary of state, under date of March 19th, that Iasigi had been removed from his consular office, and that all official connection between him and the Turkish government had been severed, as the department of state had been officially informed by the Turkish minister on the 9th of March.
Therefore, when the order remanding Iasigi to the custody of the state officer was entered, he was not holding a consular office, and the supposed objection to his detention for extradition to Massachusetts did not exist.
As under section 761 of the Revised Statutes it is the duty of the court, justice, or judge granting the writ, on hearing, 'to dispose of the party as law and justice require,' the question at once arises whether the order of the district court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Shepley
... ... 48, 14 ... S.Ct. 746, 38 L.Ed. 631], supra; Nishimura Ekiu v. United ... States, 142 U.S. 651, 12 S.Ct. 336, 35 L.Ed. 1146; ... Iasigi v. Van de Carr, 166 U.S. 391, 17 S.Ct. 595, ... 41 L.Ed. 1045; Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 77, 26 ... S.Ct. 370, 50 L.Ed. 652 [666]; Ex parte ... ...
-
Nally v. Hill
...United States v. Pridgeon, supra; Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651, 12 S.Ct. 336, 35 L.Ed. 1146; Iasigi v. Van der Carr, 166 U.S. 391, 17 S.Ct. 595, 41 L.Ed. 1045; Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 77, 26 S.Ct. 370, 50 L.Ed. 652; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 421, 5 S.Ct. 935, 29 L......
-
State ex rel. Barker v. Wurdeman
... ... at the time of the return. Ex parte Dye, 32 Mont. 132; ... Ekin v. United States, 142 U.S. 651; Iasege v ... Van de Carr, 166 U.S. 391; Hurd on Habeas Corpus (2 ... Ed.), pp. 251, 252. (10) When the return of the officer, ... undenied, shows that he is holding the ... ...
-
Artukovic v. Boyle
...by the amended complaint. Mishimura Ekiu v. United States, 1892, 142 U.S. 651, 12 S.Ct. 336, 35 L.Ed. 1146; Iasigi v. Van De Carr, 1897, 166 U.S. 391, 17 S.Ct. 595, 41 L.Ed. 1045. The parties stipulated that the warrant and the bond on the original petition for a writ of habeas corpus shoul......