Jacob Bassing v. Philo Cady

Decision Date24 February 1908
Docket NumberNo. 426,426
Citation13 Ann. Cas. 905,208 U.S. 386,28 S.Ct. 392,52 L.Ed. 540
PartiesJACOB BASSING, Plff. in Err., v. PHILO V. CADY, Sheriff of Bristol County, State of Rhode Island
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Edward D. Bassett for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 386-388 intentionally omitted] Mr. J. Jerome Hahn for defendant in error.

[Argument of Counsel from page 388 intentionally omitted]

Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court:

There was some difference of opinion between counsel upon the question whether certain papers, printed by the defendant, constituted any part of the record which this court could examine upon the present writ of error. While this is not an important matter, in view of our conclusion as to the controlling questions in the case, it is appropriate to say that, on appeal or writ of error to this court, papers or documents used at the hearing in the court below cannot in strictness be examined here unless they are made part of the record by bill of exceptions or in some other proper mode. For the purposes of our decision we take the case to be substantially as the plaintiff in error insists that it is on the record. He cannot ask more.

The governor of Rhode Island on the 10th day of July, 1907, issued a warrant of arrest addressed to the sheriff of the county of Bristol, in that state, reciting that information had been communicated to him by the governor of New York that Jacob Bassing (the present plaintiff in error) was charged with the crime of grand larceny, first degree, committed in New York, was a fugitive from the justice of the latter state, and was supposed to be then in Rhode Island; and that the governor of New York had transmitted to him a copy of an indictment, warrant, and other papers, certified by him to be authentic charging Bassing with the above crime, and demanded his delivery to the agent of New York, according to the Constitution and laws of the United States. The warrant of the governor of Rhode Island commanded the arrest of Bassing and his delivery to the person designated by the governor of New York to receive and convey him to the latter state, to be there dealt with according to law.

Having been arrested under that warrant, and being in the custody of the sheriff of Bristol county, Bassing sued out the present writ of habeas corpus from the superior court of Rhode Island. The material part of that petition is in these words: 'Your petitioner further shows that he has been extradited at a prior time, to wit, March 12th, 1907, on requisition of the governor of the state of New York for the same offense as is alleged in the present indictment. Your petitioner further shows that on April 15th, A. D. 1907, he was discharged from custody by the state of New York, to which he had been extradited, where he was held in custody for the same alleged offense for which he is now held for extradition, and your petitioner offers to produce in court the warrant under which he is now held, together with a copy of the indictment for the offense on which he is now held, it being impossible to procure a copy of said warrant on the presentation of this petition, on account of the shortness of the time since said warrant has been issued, and because said sheriff of Bristol county threatens to immediately remove said Bassing out of the jurisdiction of this court. Your petitioner further shows that his detention and imprisonment, as aforesaid, is unlawful, in this, to wit: First. That the warrant of the governor of Rhode Island and the order for his delivery to the agent of the state of New York were issued without authority of law and contrary to the Constitution and laws of the state of Rhode Island, as well as contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States [relating to fugitives from justice], especially § 2, article 4, of the Constitution of the United States, and § 5278 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3597), in that your petitioner is not a fugitive from justice. Wherefore he prays that he may be relieved of said unlawful restraint and imprisonment, and that a writ of habeas corpus may issue in this behalf, so that your petitioner may be forthwith brought before this court to do, submit to, and receive what the law may direct.'...

To continue reading

Request your trial
91 cases
  • Commonwealth v. Smith, No. 2 EAP 2019
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • July 21, 2020
    ..., 203 U.S. 222, 227-28, 27 S.Ct. 122, 51 L.Ed. 161 (1906) (cleaned up; emphasis in original); but see Bassing v. Cady , 208 U.S. 386, 391-93, 28 S.Ct. 392, 52 L.Ed. 540 (1908) (suggesting that asylum State governor might be permitted to deny an extradition demand when the requisition State'......
  • Serfass v. United States 8212 1424
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 3, 1975
    ...49 L.Ed. 114 (1904); United States v. Macdonald, 207 U.S. 120, 127, 28 S.Ct. 53, 55, 52 L.Ed. 130 (1907); Bassing v. Cady, 208 U.S. 386, 391 392, 28 S.Ct. 392, 393, 52 L.Ed. 540 (1908); Collins v. Loisel, 262 U.S. 426, 429, 43 S.Ct. 618, 619, 67 L.Ed. 1062 Under our cases jeopardy had not y......
  • Michigan v. Doran
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • December 18, 1978
    ...extradition is prima facie evidence that the constitutional and statutory requirements have been met. Cf. Bassing v. Cady, 208 U.S. 386, 392, 28 S.Ct. 392, 393, 52 L.Ed. 540 (1908). Once the governor has granted extradition, a court considering release on habeas corpus can do no more than d......
  • Com. v. Klobuchir
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • June 6, 1979
    ...Knup v. Philadelphia, 386 Pa. 350, 126 A.2d 399 (1956).6 No jeopardy attaches upon return of an indictment. See Bassing v. Cady, 208 U.S. 386, 28 S.Ct. 392, 52 L.Ed. 540 (1908).7 While this reasoning may suggest that subsequent prosecution for a higher degree of homicide may not be barred e......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Reviewing Extraditions to Torture.
    • United States
    • May 1, 2021
    ...of a crime is not a trial; and his discharge by the magistrate upon such examination is not an acquittal."); see also Bassing v. Cady, 208 U.S. 386, 391 (1908) ("The accused had not been put in jeopardy when the first indictment was (108.) See, e.g., Rivera, supra note 61, at 819 (explainin......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT