State ex rel. Bond v. Langum
| Decision Date | 11 January 1917 |
| Docket Number | 20,269 - (311) |
| Citation | 160 N.W. 858,135 Minn. 320 |
| Parties | STATE EX REL. ERA BOND v. OTTO S. LANGUM |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Upon the relation of Era Bond the district court for McLeod county granted its writ of habeas corpus directed to respondent as sheriff of Hennepin county. The matter was heard by Morrison J., who denied respondent's motion to quash the writ and remand the prisoner to his custody, sustained the writ, and discharged the prisoner. From the order sustaining the writ and discharging the prisoner, respondent sheriff appealed. Motion to dismiss appeal denied. Reversed.
Habeas corpus -- order discharging relator appealable.
1. An order discharging relator in a habeas corpus proceeding is appealable notwithstanding no stay was obtained in the court below.
Extradition of prisoner -- evidence necessary to offset warrant.
2. To overcome the effect to be given the Governor's warrant in an extradition case, the evidence must clearly and satisfactorily demonstrate that the person therein named was not in the demandant state at or about the time the crime for which he is indicted was committed. The evidence is held not to come up to this measure of proof.
Lyndon A. Smith, Attorney General, and John M. Rees, County Attorney, for respondent sheriff.
The Governor of Illinois issued a requisition to the Governor of this state for Era Bond, the relator, who had been indicted by the grand jury of Cook county, Illinois, for the crime of grand larceny charged to have been committed in said county on or about November 7, 1915. After a hearing, the Governor of this state issued his warrant of rendition directing the respondent, the sheriff of Hennepin county, to apprehend relator and surrender him to the official agent of the state of Illinois as provided by law. The respondent took relator into custody by virtue of the warrant, but, by resort to the writ of habeas corpus in the state and Federal courts, relator has thus far prevented extradition. The last writ petitioned for was issued by Judge Morrison, judge of the judicial district adjoining that wherein relator was detained by respondent. Upon the hearing relator was discharged and the sheriff appealed to this court, where the matter has been heard de novo upon the testimony adduced before Judge Morrison and upon additional testimony taken and reported to this court by a duly-appointed referee.
Relator's motion to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that, since no stay was obtained from Judge Morrison, there is nothing before the court, relator is not in custody, and cannot be again apprehended must be denied. The statute (sections 8311 and 8312, G.S. 1913), gives the right of any party aggrieved to appeal from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in the same manner as other appeals are taken from the district court; and the appeal is to be heard and judgment rendered in this court the same as if the writ had originally issued here. If the judgment on appeal is contrary to the judgment below, the latter is necessarily reversed and set aside. It cannot be that the court below can render the right of appeal nugatory by omitting or refusing to grant a stay pending the...
To continue reading
Request your trial