People ex rel. La Rue v. Meyering

• Decision Date: 19 June 1934
• Docket Number: No. 22443.,22443.
• Citation: 357 Ill. 166,191 N.E. 318
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. LA RUE v. MEYERING, Sheriff.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

357 Ill. 166

191 N.E. 318

PEOPLE ex rel. LA RUE

v.MEYERING, Sheriff.

No. 22443.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 19, 1934.

Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Philip J. Finnegan, Judge.

Habeas corpus proceeding by the People, on the relation of James A. La Rue, against William D. Meyering, Sheriff. To review a judgment remanding him to the custody of the Sheriff, the relator brings error.

Reversed, and relator discharged.

Northup & Beardsley, of Chicago (Grenville Beardsley, of Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

Otto Kerner, Atty. Gen., Thomas J. Courtney, State's Atty., of Chicago, and J. J. Neiger, of Springfield (Edward E. Wilson and J. Albert Woll, both of Chicago, of counsel), for defendant in error.

SHAW, Justice.

On December 8, 1933, the relator sued out a writ of habeas corpus from the criminal court of Cook county, to which a return was made by the respondent showing that the relator was in custody by virtue of a Governor's fugitive warrant, which had been issued upon requisition from the Governor of Florida. The relator traversed the return and at the conclusion of the hearing was remanded to the custody of the sheriff, to be delivered to the agent for the state of Florida. The cause is before us upon statutory writ of error.

The Governor's warrant shown by the record is in the usual form, reciting the requisition by the Governor of Florida for the relator and that the relator was shown by a commitment to have been charged with the crime of ‘breaking and entering with the intent to commit a felony.’ The requisition, with its supporting documents, was introduced in evidence. This requisition, which is in proper and usual form, recites on its face that the annexed documents are certified to be authentic; that relator, James A. La Rue, fugitive from justice, ‘stands convicted with the crime of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony and is an escaped convict from the Florida State prison farm.’ Attached to this requisition and made a part of it is a document entitled ‘Application for requisition,’ which is in form of an affidavit subscribed before a notary public by one Nathan Mayo. This affidavit, so far as material, is in part as follows:

‘Before me, an officer duly authorized to administer oaths and take acknowledgments under the laws of the State of Florida, personally appeared Nathan Mayo, commissioner of agriculture of the State of Florida, who, after first being duly sworn, deposes and says that by virtue of the constitution of the State of Florida he is the head of the prison department, and that the records of said prison department are kept in his office, and that such records show that one James A. LaRue, whose prison number is 24740, was convicted at the November term of the criminal court of record in and for Dade county, Florida A. D. 1932, and sentenced on the 30th day of November, A. D. 1932, to serve a term of three (3) years in the Florida State prison for the crime of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, and that prior to the expiration of said sentence, to-wit, on the 5th day of April, A. D. 1933, the said James A. LaRue made his escape from the Florida State prison and has never returned; and affiant further deposes and says that he is informed and believes that the said James A. LaRue is now a resident of another State other than the State of Florida, to-wit, the State of Illinois, and is now confined in the jail in the city of Chicago, Illinois, and is there known by the name of James A. LaRue.’ The affidavit proceeds in the form of a request that the Governor requisition the relator's return, and nominates or suggests an agent to receive the relator and return him from Chicago. This affidavit is signed by Nathan Mayo, with the words ‘Commissioner of Agriculture of the State of Florida’ under the line upon which he signs. The jurat reads as follows:

‘Sworn to and subscribed before me this first day of December, A. D. 1933.

‘Thomas E. Andrews,

‘Notary Public State of Florida at large.

‘My commission expires Dec. 11, 1935.’

Also attached is an uncertified copy of a mittimus issued by the criminal court of Dade county requiring the imprisonment of the relator in the state penitentiary ‘for three,’ without specifying whether the sentence is for three years, three months, or three days. These are the only documents supporting the application for requisition, except an attached description, photograph, and finger prints.

Many errors are assigned and argued, but since the case must be disposed of upon the sufficiency or insufficiency of the application for a fugitive warrant contained in the requisition from Florida and its supporting documents, it will be unnecessary to consider any other points which have been raised.

Upon requisition being made for a fugitive warrant, the Governor to whom the request is presented has two questions to pass upon: (1) Whether the person demanded is substantially charged with crime against the laws of the demanding state by indictment or affidavit before a magistrate; and (2) whether he is a fugitive from the justice of that state. Munsey v. Clough, 196 U. S. 364, 25 S. Ct. 282, 49 L. Ed. 515;Roberts v. Reilly, 116 U. S. 80, 6 S. Ct. 291, 29 L. Ed. 544;Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How. 66, 16 L. Ed. 717. The first of these questions is one of law and the second one of fact. Roberts v. Reilly, supra. In this case the second question is not involved, and we have only to determine the answer to the first in order to decide the issues in the case.

In extradition proceedings this court is controlled by the Constitution of the United States and the act of Congress passed pursuant thereto, and we are bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States on the question here involved. People v. Baldwin, 341 Ill. 604, 174 N. E. 51. Section 2 of article 4 of the Constitution of the United States provides as follows: ‘A person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up to be removed to the...