State ex rel. Arnold v. Justus
| Citation | 84 Minn. 237 |
| Decision Date | 29 October 1901 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 12,879 - (207).,s. 12,879 - (207). |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. FRANK ARNOLD v. PHILIP C. JUSTUS and Another.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Lawler & Arnold, for appellant.
W. B. Douglas, Attorney General, and Thomas R. Kane, County Attorney, for respondents.
Edward McNichols is in custody upon the warrant of the governor of this state, issued to honor a requisition from the chief magistrate of Illinois in extradition proceedings. After arrest upon the warrant, the prisoner obtained a writ of habeas corpus from Judge Bunn, of the district court for Ramsey county, who, after hearing, upon the return thereof, quashed the writ and remanded the prisoner to the custody of the respondents. Under the provisions of Laws 1895, c. 327, petitioner appeals from such order to this court, where the whole issue has been presented anew, as required by the provisions of that statute.
Evidence has been received in behalf of the prisoner, embracing the formal requisition, with accompanying documents, as well as the certificates acted upon by the governor of this state; also the executive warrant upon which the prisoner is detained. The several claims urged by prisoner's counsel to secure his discharge will be stated and considered in the order in which they are presented in counsel's brief and on the argument:
1. From the evidence it appears that McNichols on September 3 last was arrested in the city of St. Paul without process. Habeas corpus proceedings were had in his behalf before Judge Brill, of the district court for Ramsey county. An order discharging the prisoner was made therein, but, before the prisoner left the court room, officers followed in close proximity, and rearrested him. It is claimed that the officers arrested the prisoner while in the court room. We are not disposed to deny this claim, even to the full extent contended by counsel for prisoner, since we deem all acts preliminary to the action of the executive of this state upon the requisition not of vital importance on this investigation. It may be admitted that under numerous pretexts McNichols was from the time of the order of discharge by Judge Brill restrained of his liberty until the extradition warrant was served on September 21, following, whereupon the writ of habeas corpus was sought from Judge Bunn, whose denial of relief and remand of the prisoner to the custody of respondents is the order which is now under review.
Upon the facts thus summarized, it is urged that from the time of the first discharge by Judge Brill until the service of the extradition warrant the prisoner was unlawfully restrained of his liberty for the same cause and by the same officers who arrested him under the extradition warrant; hence service of such warrant while in such custody was illegal, in violation of the personal rights of the prisoner, and in disregard of the effect of the previous discharge by a court of competent jurisdiction, whereby the forcible and unlawful arrest affects their subsequent action, and taints with illegality any effective use of the executive warrant, at least until the prisoner had first been fully set at liberty.
We are unable to adopt this view. The fact that the prisoner was arrested unlawfully previous to the issuance of the extradition warrant does not furnish a substantial reason why that instrument, if legal on its face, should be ignored. Conceding that the first arrest and subsequent detention of the prisoner were in violation of law; that up to the time when the extradition warrant was issued and delivered to the proper officer an assault had been committed upon him, followed by false imprisonment, for which he might have damages; that he was arrested in Judge Brill's court improperly, in contempt of the order of that court, — these were acts with which we have nothing to do on this hearing. It seems to us very clear that the wrongs and injuries which the prisoner had suffered from the alleged previous misconduct of the officers to whom the extradition warrant was afterwards issued cannot modify the warrant itself, nor excuse or permit any disobedience of its commands. State v. Ross, 21 Iowa, 467.
If the warrant was effective to justify prisoner's custody, such custody was justified from the time it was served upon him. We are quite clear that we cannot redress prisoner's independent and collateral grievances upon this review, nor set aside a legal arrest because of a previous unlawful one; for, if the warrant is a protection to respondents at all, such protection inures from its service.
2. The requirements in proceedings for the extradition of fugitives in the demanding state, as well as the state where such fugitives have taken asylum, under section 2, article 4, of the federal constitution, are provided for by the federal law in the following terms:
"Whenever the executive authority of any state or territory demands any person as a fugitive from justice, of the executive authority of any state or territory to which such person has fled, and produces a copy of an indictment found or an affidavit made before a magistrate of any state or territory, charging the person demanded with having committed treason, felony or other crime, certified as authentic by the governor or chief magistrate of the state or territory from whence the person so charged has fled, it shall be the duty of the executive authority of the state or territory to which such person has fled to cause him to be arrested and secured,"
to be delivered up in accordance with further proceedings therein contained. R. S. (U. S.) tit. 66, § 5278.
Upon the construction of this act it is urged for prisoner that no demand from the proper authorities of Illinois has been made upon the governor of this state. This contention is based upon the statement in the body of the requisition that the same is made by the "acting governor" of the state of Illinois. The requisition is signed and attested by H. A. Northcott as governor; also by the secretary of state that it is executed "by the governor," to which latter attestation is attached the great seal. The pith of the point in this respect is that an "acting governor" is not recognized in the constitution of Illinois as the "chief executive" of that state, and his designation as acting governor does not, therefore, comply with the act of congress, which requires the demand to be made by the "chief executive" of the state from which the fugitive has fled.
If this assumption must be unqualifiedly accepted, more difficulty might arise in the disposition of this subject than appears to be necessarily involved. By reference, however, to the constitution of the state of Illinois, we find, under article 5, the following provisions:
etc.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial