People ex rel. Stevens v. Meyering

• Decision Date: 24 June 1932
• Docket Number: No. 21295.,21295.
• Citation: People ex rel. Stevens v. Meyering, 349 Ill. 198, 181 N.E. 620 (Ill. 1932)
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. STEVENS v. MEYERING, Sheriff.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

349 Ill. 198

181 N.E. 620

PEOPLE ex rel. STEVENS

v.MEYERING, Sheriff.

No. 21295.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 24, 1932.

Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Walter T. Stanton, Judge.

Habeas corpus by the People, on the relation of Mary Stevens, against William D. Meyering, Sheriff.Judgment dismissing the petition, and relator brings error.

Affirmed.

Benedict J. Short and Miles J. Devine, both of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Atty. Gen., John A. Swanson, State's Atty., of Chicago, and J. J. Neiger, of Springfield (Edward E. Wilson, and Grenville Beardsley, both of Chicago, of counsel), for defendant in error.

STONE, J.

Plaintiff in error was arrested on a warrant issued by the Governor of this state on requisition of the Governor of New York to answer a charge of grand larceny and filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the criminal court of Cook county.On hearing the petition was dismissed and plaintiff in error remanded to the custody of the agent from the state of New York.She brings the cause here for review, and argues, first, that the sheriff's return is illegal and does not justify her detention, in that the warrant of the Governor, only, is included therein, while none of the other papers filed with the application for Governor's warrant were returned by the sheriff; second, there was no competent evidence that plaintiff in error was present in the demanding state on the date of the alleged commission of the crime of grand larceny; and, third, that the court erred in admission of evidence.

Concerning the first objection, it appears by the record that the Governor's warrant,though not set out in full in the abstract, recites that the Governor of New York demands of the Governor of this state the delivery of plaintiff in error as a fugitive from justice, ‘and has produced and laid before me a copy of a warrant and indictment certified as authentic by said Governor and duly authenticated and charging the said Mary Stevens with having committed, on or about the 16th day of July, A.D. 1930, in the county of Steuben, in the said State of New York, the crime of grand larceny, first degree, which said Governor certifies to be a crime under the laws of said State of New York.’It will be noted that the Governor's warrant certifies that plaintiff in error is charged with crime in the demanding state by an indictment.This is sufficient to make out a prima facie case showing that the issuance of the warrant by the Governor of this state was legal and justified, and that the detention of the plaintiff in error on the authority of that warrant by the sheriff is legal.People v. Meyering, 345 Ill. 449, 178 N. E. 80;People v. Meyering, 345 Ill. 598, 178 N. E. 122;Lacondra v. Hermann, 343 Ill. 608, 175 N. E. 820.

Plaintiff in error cites Lacondra v. Hermann, supra, as authority for the contention that the Governor's warrant alone is not a sufficient return.In that case, however, the Governor's warrant did not certify that he had before him copy of an indictment or an affidavit made before a magistrate of the demanding state charging the petitioner with a crime, as required by the statute.As stated, the warrant in this case does so charge.The return was sufficient.

At the trial, plaintiff in error presented the testimony of one Dr. Chesrow, to the effect that he attended her in a professional capacity in the city of Chicago during the early part of July, 1930, but that he was not in the city on the 16th day of July, the date charged in the indictment.One Cora Comina, a witness, also testified to nursing the defendant during the month of July, 1930, including July 16, in the city of Chicago.Another witness, one Max Maretz, testified that he called on plaintiff in error, who is a gypsy, and who with others of her people was living in his house during the month of July, 1930, that he went to the house on July 14 to collect rent, and that plaintiff in error was there and was ill.Plaintiff in error testified that she was not in New York on the 16th of July, but was in Chicago, where she had been treated by Dr. Chesrow.She testified that she was in Philadelphia in December, 1930, and that there was a charge there against her, but that she was released on bond and was discharged.The people presented the testimony of William P. Jones, a...