State ex rel. Stundahl v. Richardson
| Decision Date | 14 August 1885 |
| Citation | 24 N.W. 354,34 Minn. 115 |
| Parties | State of Minnesota ex rel. Peter R. Stundahl v. C. P. Richardson |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Habeas corpus. The relator, having been arrested and detained under a warrant issued by the governor of the state, on the requisition of the governor of the territory of Dakota applied to the district court for the county of Fillmore for a writ of habeas corpus, which was duly issued and served. Respondent appeals from an order by Farmer, J., discharging the relator, because of insufficiency of the warrant.
Order affirmed.
William J. Hahn, Attorney General, and J. M. Martin, for appellant cited Kingsbury's Case, 106 Mass. 223, 227 and note; Brown's Case, 112 Mass. 409; Davis' Case, 122 Mass 324; In re Hooper, 52 Wis. 699; Kentucky v Dennison, 24 How. 66; State v. Hufford, 28 Iowa 391; Ex parte Morgan, 20 F. 298.
A. G. Chapman, for relator.
In order to give the executive of the state jurisdiction to issue his warrant for the surrender of an alleged fugitive from justice, upon the requisition of the governor of another state, three things are essential under the act of congress, (U.S. Rev. St. § 5278:) (1) He must be demanded by the executive of the state from which he fled; (2) a copy of an indictment found, or an affidavit made before a magistrate, charging him with having committed the crime specified; (3) such copy of the indictment or affidavit must accompany the requisition, and be certified as authentic by the executive of such state. If these requisites are complied with, a warrant of surrender may properly be issued, and the party charged is properly restrained of his liberty. In the matter of Clark, 9 Wend. 212. It is not necessary that copies of the indictment, affidavit, or other records, be annexed to the warrant. It is sufficient that they be produced if the warrant be called in question, or that the jurisdictional facts are recited on the face of the warrant. People v. Donohue, 84 N.Y. 438; In the matter of Romaine, 23 Cal. 585.
The appellant, as marshal of the village of Lanesboro, made return to the writ of habeas corpus in this matter that he detained the relator, an alleged fugitive, by virtue of the executive warrant annexed to his return; and, no other records being produced, the case was determined by the district judge solely upon the sufficiency of such warrant.
The chief objection urged against the warrant is that it is insufficient in that it recites that the alleged fugitive stands charged "by complaint in the county of Minnehaha in the territory of Dakota, with the crime" specified, but does not show that he was so charged by indictment found or by affidavit made, accompanying the requisition. It is contended by the appellant that the term "complaint" will, in such case, be intended to mean a complaint upon oath, and that the executive, in the discharge of his duty, must be presumed to have found it to be sufficient in form and substance to justify his official action in assuming to issue the warrant of surrender, and we are referred to the practice in Massachusetts, where it is held, under a state statute resembling our own, that a warrant which recites generally that the governor is satisfied that the demand is conformable to law and ought to be complied with, is sufficient. Gen. St. 1878, c. 103, § 2; Kingsbury's Case, 106 Mass. 223. It is a sufficient answer to this, however, that in the case at bar the warrant does not contain any such general recital, and it is therefore unnecessary for us to decide...
To continue reading
Request your trial