In re Baker

• Citation: 21 Wash. 259,57 P. 827
• Parties: In re BAKER.
• Decision Date: 19 June 1899
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

57 P. 827

21 Wash. 259

In re BAKER.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 19, 1899

Appeal from superior court, King county; Orange Jacobs, Judge.

Petition by Willard E. Baker for a writ of habeas corpus. From a judgment remanding the petitioner to custody, he appeals. Affirmed.

John F Dore and Solon T. Williams, for appellant.

James F. McElroy, John B. Hart, and Walter S. Fulton, for respondent.

ANDERS J.

The appellant, Willard E. Baker, petitioned the superior court of King county for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging therein that he was illegally restrained of his liberty by John Doe whose real name is John R. McGarr, the cause and pretense of said restraint being a warrant given under the hand of a justice of the peace in and for Seattle precinct, in King county, in this state, and an indictment returned by the grand jury of Suffolk county, in the commonwealth of Massachusetts. The writ was issued as prayed for, and service thereof made on the said McGarr, who, upon the return day thereof, made return thereto that he was the duly-appointed agent of the state of Massachusetts to take and return the petitioner to that commonwealth as a fugitive from justice; that the petitioner had committed a felony in that state; that a grand jury of the county of Suffolk, state of Massachusetts, duly and lawfully returned certain indictments against the petitioner, charging him with said offense; that the governor of the state of Massachusetts in due form made a requisition upon the governor of this state for the arrest and rendition of the petitioner to the respondent as agent of the state of Massachusetts, and duly certified therein to the authenticity of said indictment that the offense charged in said indictment was a crime against the laws of Massachusetts. As a part of said return the respondent produced in court a copy of said indictment, of the requisition issued by the governor of Massachusetts, and of the warrant issued by the governor of the state of Washington. Upon the filing of the return, it was stipulated, by and between the petitioner and the respondent, that the laws of Massachusetts should be considered in evidence in the cause. No testimony was taken at the hearing, but the petitioner objected to the sufficiency of the return on the grounds (1) that said return is vague, indefinite, and uncertain, and does not contain facts sufficient to warrant the detention and imprisonment of the petitioner; (2) that the said return does not constitute a defense to the allegations set forth in the petition by said Willard E. Baker in the above-entitled case; (3) that no legal issue is made in the return to the writ of habeas corpus herein, and that said writ shows upon its face that the extradition of the said Willard E. Baker is irregular, and not in conformity with the requirements of the constitution of the United States, the acts of congress, the laws of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the state of Washington. After hearing the arguments of counsel, and duly considering the same, the court gave judgment remanding the petitioner to the custody of the said McGarr, and fixed his bail in the sum of $300 pending the appeal. The respondent moves to dismiss the appeal taken by the petitioner, on the ground and for the alleged reason that, under the laws of this state, no appeal can be taken from an order of the lower court remanding a person on a writ of habeas corpus. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the respondent that this court has entertained appeals from judgments upon habeas corpus in several instances (see In re Bojar, 7 Wash. 355, 35 P. 71; Lovell v. House of the Good Shepherd, 9 Wash. 419, 37 P. 660; In re Barbee, 19 Wash. 306, 53 P. 155); but they nevertheless contend that the question has not heretofore been directly passed upon by this court, and that no provision for an appeal is found in the statute relating to habeas corpus, and that, therefore, no appeal can be taken from a judgment in such proceedings in this state. While it is true that the habeas corpus act itself does not provide...