Jacob Bassing v. Philo Cady
Court | United States Supreme Court |
Citation | 13 Ann. Cas. 905,208 U.S. 386,28 S.Ct. 392,52 L.Ed. 540 |
Docket Number | No. 426,426 |
Parties | JACOB BASSING, Plff. in Err., v. PHILO V. CADY, Sheriff of Bristol County, State of Rhode Island |
Decision Date | 24 February 1908 |
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]
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: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Smith, No. 2 EAP 2019
..., 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
...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
...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
...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......
-
Reviewing Extraditions to Torture.
...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......