In re Cannon

• Decision Date: 18 January 1882
• Citation: 47 Mich. 481,11 N.W. 280
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: In re CANNON.

11 N.W. 280

47 Mich. 481

In re CANNON.

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 18, 1882

A requisition was made by the governor of Michigan upon the governor of Kansas for one C., under a complaint for seduction. After his delivery to the authorities of this state he was brought before a justice upon a criminal warrant, and the hearing adjourned for several days, C. in the mean time being out on bail. Before the adjourned day proceedings were commenced against him by the same prosecuting officer for bastardy, and C. refusing to plead to the merits, claimed that he could only be prosecuted for the offence for which he had been extradited. He was required to give recognizance to appear at the next term of the circuit court, and refusing so to do was imprisoned. The charge of seduction was not prosecuted, it having been discovered after the extradition it could not be maintained. Upon habeas corpus, held, that the arrest for bastardy and prosecution of the bastardy proceedings, under the circumstances, were improper, and C. should be discharged from custody.

Habeas corpus. CAMPBELL, J.

Cannon obtained a writ of habeas corpus from this court to examine into the cause of his detention by the sheriff of Lenawee county. It now appears that on proceedings of a criminal nature under a complaint for seduction, at the instance of the prosecuting attorney for Lenawee county, a requisition was made by the governor of Michigan on the governor of Kansas, by whom Cannon was delivered over to the authorities of this state, who took him to Lenawee county, where he was arrested on a criminal warrant under said charge of seduction, and brought before a justice of the peace on the twelfth day of December, 1881, for examination. On that day the justice adjourned the hearing until December 27th, and Cannon failing to give bail for his appearance on that day was committed to prison, but on the fifteenth day of December gave bail and went to the house of his father, who was his security. On the sixteenth day of December, 1881, the prosecuting attorney commenced bastardy proceedings for the same transaction involved in the previous complaint for seduction, and a warrant was issued for his arrest and served on the seventeenth day of December, when he was brought before the justice, who adjourned that proceeding until December 20th, and Cannon failing to give bail for his appearance on that day was committed to jail. On the 20th Cannon refused to plead to the merits, but made a showing and application for discharge, based on his exemption from any prosecution except for the crime for which he was delivered up by the governor of Kansas. The justice refused to discharge him, and ordered him to recognize for his appearance at the next term of the circuit court, to answer the bastardy charge. Refusing to do so, he was committed and kept in custody until the present writ was sued out. On the twenty-seventh day of December he was brought before the magistrate on the seduction charge, when it was at once discontinued on the admitted ground that it was not founded on any legal reasons.

The only question before us is whether under these circumstances, the imprisonment for bastardy was lawful. For the purposes of the present hearing it is not made a point that the prosecuting attorney, when he obtained the extradition, procured it with an actually fraudulent design to get the prisoner within the jurisdiction for different proceedings. It may be assumed that he supposed that the seduction complaint would lie. It is admitted, however, that the attorney became satisfied of the contrary on the 16th and that he without supposing it was improper set on foot the bastardy proceedings, and caused the arrest with that knowledge. It was claimed on the argument that when arrested for bastardy Cannon was not under legal restraint, but at large, and therefore that he was no longer under the operation of the extradition proceedings. This position is not true. He was bound to appear before the justice on the twenty-seventh of December, and would forfeit his bail if he did not. His bail were in law entitled to his custody, and could at any time have handed him over to the authorities. The legal duress in such a case is not ended until the prisoner is discharged.

The admitted facts show, then, that the criminal proceedings were kept on foot for more than 10 days after they were known to be groundless, and until the bastardy examination had been ended and the prisoner bound over and committed on that. And they show also that the second arrest was made under the same control and management as the first, and by the same prosecuting attorney. The question then becomes narrowed to the inquiry whether an arrest made for a different...