Morrison v. Dwyer

• Decision Date: 02 July 1909
• Parties: MORRISON v. DWYER ET AL. JOYCE v. DWYER ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

143 Iowa 502

121 N.W. 1064

MORRISON

v.DWYER ET AL.

JOYCE

v.DWYER ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

July 2, 1909.

Appeals from District Court, Woodbury County; David Mould, Judge.

Plaintiff in each of these cases petitioned, in habeas corpus, to be relieved from distraint, under a warrant of the Governor of Iowa directing his surrender to defendant Dwyer, as agent of the state of Nebraska, to be taken back to that state as a fugitive from justice. The writ was denied in each case and plaintiff appeals. The proceedings in the two cases were identical, and they may be disposed of together. Affirmed.Sullivan & Griffin, for appellant.

A. Van Wagenen and Charles H. Stewart, for appellees.

McCLAIN, J.

Requisitions of the Governor of Nebraska for the surrender of the petitioners were presented to the Governor of Iowa, and, after a hearing by the latter, of which no complaint is made, except with reference to the sufficiency of the requisition papers, warrants were issued for their surrender to the agent of the state of Nebraska. To prevent such surrender these proceedings were instituted. The refusal of the lower court to grant a writ of habeas corpus is assailed in this court on three grounds. First, the insufficiency of the complaints filed before the county judge in Nebraska, in which each of the petitioners was charged with the commission of a crime in that state; second, the insufficiency of the certification of a copy of such complaint by the Governor of Nebraska; and, third, the insufficiency of the evidence to show that petitioners were in fact fugitives from justice.

1. The complaint charging petitioners with the commission of a crime in Nebraska was sworn to by the county attorney of the proper county, and it was made to appear that this was the proper method in that state of charging persons with the crime of which petitioners were accused. A complaint or information, duly sworn to, is such affidavit as is required as the basis of an extradition proceeding, if it is a proper method of charging the commission of the crime in the state, where committed. In re Hooper, 52 Wis. 699, 58 N. W. 741;State v. Richardson, 34 Minn. 115, 24 N. W. 354;State v. Bates, 101 Minn. 303, 112 N. W. 261. Appellants contend that a complaint by a county attorney is necessarily on information and belief, and that such an affidavit is not sufficient. But the complaints in these cases were not sworn to as true only on information and belief. The allegations of fact therein are sworn to as true without qualification, and it is not for us to say that the county attorney swore to the truth thereof only on information and belief. If sufficient in form a court cannot inquire as to the knowledge of the affiants as to the facts. It is further contended that the certifications of these complaints are not in such form as to entitle them to be introduced and...