Jackson v. Snyder

• Decision Date: 05 November 1923
• Docket Number: 3979.
• Citation: 293 F. 842
• Parties: JACKSON v. SNYDER.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

293 F. 842

JACKSON v. SNYDER.

No. 3979.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia.

November 5, 1923

Submitted October 3, 1923.

Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.

Armond W. Scott and Royal A. Hughes, both of Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Peyton Gordon and O. E. Koegel, both of Washington, D.C., for appellee.

Before SMYTH, Chief Justice, ROBB, Associate Justice, and BAILEY Judge of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.

SMYTH Chief Justice.

Jackson was arrested as a fugitive from the justice of the commonwealth of Virginia on a warrant issued by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia at the request of the Governor of Virginia. Having petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus to test the question as to whether he was legally detained under the warrant, the writ was issued and he was brought before the Supreme Court for hearing. The court found that he was a fugitive as charged dismissed the petition, discharged the writ, and remanded the petitioner to the custody of the marshal.

The regularity of the extradition papers is not questioned, and the only basis upon which the appellant seeks a reversal of the judgment is that the court erred in finding that the petitioner was in the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged offense. Considerable testimony was taken tending to show that he was not in Virginia at that time, but there is also much testimony to the effect that he was. It was for the court below to consider this conflicting testimony and determine where the truth lay. When the evidence is thus in dispute, or where different conclusions may be drawn from admitted facts, we as a reviewing court have no right to disturb the finding of the trial court. Ornelas v. Ruiz, 161 U.S. 502, 509, 16 Sup.Ct. 689 40 L.Ed. 787; Bryant v. United States, 167 U.S. 104 105, 17 Sup.Ct. 744, 42 L.Ed. 94; McNamara v. Henkel, 226 U.S. 520, 523, 33 Sup.Ct. 146, 57 L.Ed. 330; Ellison v. Splain, 261 F. 247, 49 App.D.C. 99, 101, and cases there referred to; Lawson v.

United States Mining Co., 207 U.S. 1, 12, 28 Sup.Ct. 15, 52 L.Ed. 65; Cole v. Cole, 286 F. 764, 52 App.D.C. 302; and Campbell v. Willis, 53 App.D.C. 296, 290 F. 271, 273.

In the Cole Case we said:

'The testimony was in sharp conflict. The triers of fact saw the witnesses, heard them testify, and observed their demeanor on the witness stand. We are denied this advantage, and hence are not in as good a position as they were to pass upon the credibility of the testimony. It is the settled rule that where such is the case the finding of the lower court will not be disturbed, unless it is palpably wrong.'

The finding of the trial...