State ex rel. Webster v. Moeller
| Decision Date | 14 March 1934 |
| Docket Number | 29,978 |
| Citation | 253 N.W. 668,191 Minn. 193 |
| Parties | STATE EX REL. JOSEPH WEBSTER, ALIAS JOSEPH HOGAN, v. GEORGE MOELLER |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Habeas corpus in the district court for Ramsey county upon the relation of Joseph Webster, alias Joseph Hogan, directed to respondent as sheriff, by whom relator was held pursuant to a rendition warrant issued by the governor of Minnesota upon the requisition of the governor of Wisconsin charging relator with murder and burglary. Upon hearing, the court, Hugo O. Hanft, Judge quashed the writ and remanded relator to the custody of respondent. Upon appeal, this court appointed James C Michael, one of the judges of the district court for Ramsey county, as referee to take the evidence, which was confined to the question of how and by whom the rendition warrant of the governor of Minnesota was signed. Writ quashed and relator remanded to custody of respondent.
Extradition -- indictment or affidavit -- sufficiency.
1. "Complaint" sworn to on information and belief attached to requisition papers is sufficient "indictment" or "affidavit" to authorize the issuance of extradition papers by the governor of asylum state under act of congress, 18 USCA, § 662; Mason U.S. Code, Title 18, § 662.
Extradition -- warrant of rendition -- issuance -- presumption.
2. Governor's issuance of extradition warrant raises presumption which controls until rebutted that named person is a "fugitive from justice" and hence subject to extradition under act of congress, 18 USCA, § 662; Mason U.S. Code, Title 18, § 662.
Extradition -- warrant of rendition -- validity.
3. Where, pursuant to a hearing before governor in person, extradition warrant originally issued by clerk in governor's absence is reinstated, such warrant is valid even though not signed personally by the governor. Whether warrant would be valid if clerk had signed and issued it without governor's knowledge or direction is not considered. 2 Mason Minn. St. 1927, § 10542, providing that the governor shall "issue" extradition warrants, does not mean that he shall personally sign them.
Allan M. McGill, for relator.
Harry H. Peterson, Attorney General of Minnesota, Roy C. Frank, Assistant Attorney General of Minnesota, J. E. Finnegan, Attorney General of Wisconsin, and Charles M. Pors, District Attorney, Wood County, Wisconsin, for respondent.
Habeas corpus proceedings instituted against George Moeller, sheriff of Ramsey county, challenging his right to retain the body of Joseph Webster, alias Joseph Hogan, relator herein.
Relator was arrested by George Moeller at the request of authorities of Wood county, Wisconsin, who hold a warrant for Webster's arrest. He is charged with murder and burglary. The warrant for his arrest was issued upon a sworn complaint of the district attorney of Wood county, Wisconsin, the same being signed upon information and belief. Proper requisition papers, executed by his excellency the governor of the state of Wisconsin, were presented to his excellency the governor of Minnesota. On January 26, 1934, Ann Egan, extradition clerk in the office of the governor of Minnesota, apparently in accordance with her usual practice, signed the governor's extradition warrant with the governor's name. Shortly thereafter relator demanded a hearing. The extradition warrant signed by Ann Egan thereupon was suspended by her and a hearing ordered. The governor was absent from his office on these two occasions. The subsequent hearing, however, was had before the governor in person. After the hearing he directed Miss Egan to reinstate the extradition warrant to which she had first signed the governor's name but later had suspended. The evidence taken before a referee in this habeas corpus proceeding was confined by counsel to the question as to how and by whom the governor's warrant was signed.
Relator raises three questions:
(1) Is a complaint upon information and belief sufficient in extradition proceedings?
(2) Is relator a fugitive from justice?
(3) Is the extradition warrant invalid because not personally signed by the governor?
1. There is no merit in the first contention. Extradition proceedings between states are authorized by act of congress.18 USCA, § 662, Mason U.S. Code, Title 18, § 662. That act provides that when certain other requirements are met the governor of the asylum state shall issue a warrant of extradition upon there being produced by the demanding state "a copy of an indictment found or an affidavit made before a magistrate." While in the case at bar the paper attached to the requisition papers forwarded by the governor of Wisconsin is styled a "complaint" and is sworn to on information and belief, it is acknowledged and notarized and is sworn to by Charles M. Pors, district attorney for Wood county, Wisconsin. This is such an affidavit as meets the requirements of the above quoted portion of the act of congress. An indictment signed by a foreman as "a true bill" attached to requisition papers has been held sufficient to allow the issuance of an extradition warrant. State ex rel. Arnold v. Justus, 84 Minn. 237, 238, 87 N.W. 770, 55 L.R.A. 325. A very analogous case to the one at bar is that of State ex rel. Nemec v. Sheriff of Hennepin County, 148 Minn. 484, 181 N.W. 640, where a complaint, sworn to and filed in municipal court of Chicago upon which a warrant was issued, similarly was held sufficient. The court of this state has no concern as to the sufficiency of this complaint as a pleading in the Wisconsin courts.
2. There was no evidence taken before the referee as to whether relator was a "fugitive from justice" within the aforementioned act of congress (18 USCA, § 662; Mason U.S. Code, Title 18, § 662) so as to be subject to extradition. It is firmly established in this state that...
To continue reading
Request your trial