State ex rel. Grande v. Bates
| Decision Date | 11 June 1907 |
| Docket Number | 15,298 - (212) |
| Citation | 112 N.W. 260,101 Minn. 303 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. J. H. GRANDE v. WILLIAM J. BATES |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by relator from an order of the district court for St. Louis county, Dibell, J., discharging a writ of habeas corpus and remanding relator to the custody of respondent. Affirmed.
Extradition.
The relator was taken into custody by the respondent, as sheriff of the county of St. Louis, by virtue of the warrant of the governor of this state for his arrest and surrender to an agent of the state of California, as a fugitive from justice. This is an appeal from an order of the district court of the county of St. Louis discharging a writ of habeas corpus sued out by the relator and remanding him to the custody of the respondent. Held:
1. The copy of the affidavit charging the relator with a crime was duly certified as authentic by the governor of the demanding state.
2. It will be implied from the authentication that the officer certifying to the jurat of the affidavit was a magistrate, as represented therein.
3. That the venue of the offense and of the affidavit were properly stated therein, and that the affidavit charges the commission of a crime by the relator with sufficient definiteness.
4. In the absence of any claim by the relator, either in his petition for the writ or in his traverse of the return thereto, that he is not the person named in the warrant, the presumption arising from the identity of the name of the relator with the name in the warrant and requisition papers is sufficient prima facie evidence of his identity.
5. The warrant and requisition papers upon which it was based, and which are a part of the return and are before the court, are legally sufficient, although the warrant recites that the relator was charged upon complaint with the crime of forgery.
William E. Culkin and Warner E. Whipple, for appellant.
Baldwin Baldwin & Dancer, for respondent.
This is an appeal from an order of the district court of the county of St. Louis discharging the writ of habeas corpus issued in this case and remanding the relator to the custody of the respondent as sheriff. The matter was heard in this court upon the petition for the writ, the writ, the return thereto and the traverse thereof. It appears from such documents that a demand was made by the governor of the state of California upon the governor of the state of Minnesota for the surrender of the relator to the demanding state as a fugitive from justice; that such demand was honored by the governor of this state, who issued his warrant to the respondent, directing him to arrest the relator and deliver him to the agent of the demanding state; and, further, that the respondent now detains the relator by virtue of such warrant.
The relator here urges that the extradition proceedings, including the warrant of rendition, are not sufficient to justify his arrest and detention by the respondent as sheriff. In order that a person may be held for extradition, it must appear that he is a fugitive from the justice of the demanding state, and that a demand has been made for his surrender by the governor thereof, accompanied by a copy of an indictment found or an affidavit made before a magistrate of the demanding state charging him with having committed a crime therein, certified as authentic by the governor or chief magistrate of such state. Section 5278, R.S.U.S. [U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3597]. If there was a compliance with these requisites in this case, the relator's detention is legal; otherwise, not.
1. The first objection to the proceedings urged is that the copy of the complaint or affidavit charging the relator with the crime of forgery was not properly certified as authentic by the governor of California. The certification as contained in his demand is as follows: "It satisfactorily appears by the annexed and accompanying complaint, in form of an affidavit, filed in and issued out of the justice court of Stockton township, county of San Joaquin, state of California, and warrant of arrest issued out of said court, also affidavits of George F. McNoble, Walter F. Sibley, Joseph D. Simpson, and Hayward Reed (which I certify are authentic and duly authenticated in accordance with the laws of the state of California), that in the due and regular course of judicial proceedings under the laws of this state J. H. Grande stands charged with the crime of forgery." The objection is that the certification relates only to the affidavits of McNoble, Sibley, Simpson, and Reed. The only reasonable construction of the language used is that the governor certifies that all of the documents enumerated by him and upon which he bases his demand are authentic. His certificate is therefore sufficient.
2. The next objection is that the complaint or affidavit purports to be sworn to before a justice of the peace, but there is no proof before the court that a justice of the peace in the state of California is authorized to administer an oath, and this court cannot presume that the statute law of that state is the same as in this state. It will be implied from the executive authentication that the officer certifying to the jurat of the affidavit was such magistrate as he is therein represented to be. State v. Richardson, 34 Minn. 115, 24 N.W. 354.
3. Again, it is urged that the affidavit or verified complaint, charging the relator with a crime in the state of California, is fatally defective, for the reason that no venue is stated therein, and it is entitled in a cause not pending. The heading of the complaint or affidavit is this: "In Justice's Court of Stockton Township, in the County of San Joaquin, State of California." Then follows the title of the cause. Conceding the contention that technically no case was pending when the affidavit or complaint was sworn to, yet the title of the case -- that is, the naming of the parties -- is simply harmless surplusage. Rejecting this, the affidavit clearly shows on its face that the venue of the affidavit and of the offense charged was "Stockton township, in the county of San Joaquin, state of California." The objection is without merit. Young v. Young, 18 Minn. 72 (90); 1 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 313.
4. It is further urged that there is no proof before the court of the identity of the relator as the J. H Grande who is charged with forgery in California. The relator has not claimed that he is not such person. The respondent, as sheriff, made return to the writ that he detained the relator under and by virtue of the warrant of the governor of this state, issued on the demand of the governor of California, and the papers upon which it was based, copies of which were annexed to his return. The relator did not traverse this part of...
To continue reading
Request your trial