State v. Plants.

• Decision Date: 15 November 1884
• Parties: State v. Plants.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

25 W.Va. 119

State

v.Plants.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted January 11, 1884.

Decided November 15, 1884.

1. If upon the hearing of a writ of habeas corpus the court or judge is satisfied, that the offence, for which the prisoner was held, was committed within the jurisdiction of the court, the prisoner should not be discharged, although the process, on which he was arrested and committed, was informal and not in compliance with the law. (p. 122.)

2. The jurisdiction of West Virginia is co-extensive with the water of the Ohio river while con lined within its banks. (p. 122.)

3. The State of West Virginia in the proper county has jurisdiction of offences committed on a boat, which is afloat on the Ohio river while confined within its banks, whether such boat is or is not fastened to some object on the bank. (p. 122.)

4. P. opposite to Ravenswood in Jackson county West Virginia on the Ohio side of the Ohio river sold spirituous liquors in a boat, which was afloat on the river beyond low water mark but fastened by a rope to the bank. Held:

The offense, if one was committed within the jurisdiction of West Virginia. (p. 122.)

The opinion of the court contains a sufficient statement of the case:

G. J. Walker and W. Miller, for plaintiff in error.

Attorney-General Watts for the State.

Johnson, President:

This is a writ of error to the judgment of the judge of the circuit court of Jackson refusing to discharge the prisoner on a writ of habeas corpus. The petition alleges, that complaint was made before W. C. Ernst, a justice of said county, that on the 21st day of March, 1880, the petitioner "did sell or offer for sale spirituous liquors, and that he, the complanant, had cause to believe and did believe, that such spirituous liquors were sold or offered for sale in a boat owned and occupied by petitioner lying opposite or near the town of Ravenswood in the said county of Jackson and State of West Virginia. And thereupon the said justice on the 22d day of March, 1880, issued his alleged process purporting to be a warrant directed to any constable, &c. to bring the party before him to answer the complaint and to be dealt with according to law;" * * * "that the officer came on his boat being then and there in the State of Ohio and within and under the jurisdiction thereof, and not in the State of West Virginia or within the jurisdiction or territory of the State aforesaid, that is to say, that said petitioner was at the time last aforesaid on his said boat, which was fastened and moored to the bank of the Ohio river on the Ohio side thereof; that said river was at the time aforesaid at high stage; that the said boat and petitioner were at the time aforesaid wholly without the jurisdiction and territory of the said State of West Virginia and were wholly within the territory of the said State of Ohio;" * * * "that petitioner was by said officer illegally and forcibly brought to West Virginia and carried before said justice, who committed him to the jail of said county to be there kept until discharged according to law." Petitioner alleges that the warrant was issued without such complaint, as the law requires; that said warrant, on which he was arrested, is illegal and void; and that he is not guilty of any offence against the laws of West Virginia. He further says that the commitment was illegal and void. He prayed for a writ of habeas corpus, &c.

The commitment recites, that the justice required of the defendant, Plants, bail in the sum of $100.00 for his appearance to answer an indictment for the offence, with which he was charged, which bail he failed to produce, and in default thereof he was committed to jail. The writ of habeas corpus issued from the judge of the circuit court of, Jackson county in vacation on the. 23rd day of March, 1880. The writ issued to the jailor of the county, in whose custody the prisoner was, and on the same day he made return, that he held the prisoner by virtue of the warrant and mittimus issued as aforesaid. On the said 23rd day of March, 1880, the judge of the circuit court of Jackson county in vacation entered an order reciting, that said Plants was brought before him on writ of habeas corpus issued because of the warrant of arrest and commitment issued by justice W. C. Ernst, and proceeds as follows: "And thereupon the petitioner moved the said judge to quash said warrant of arrest and commitment and discharge petitioner from custody, which motion being argued and considered is overruled, and it appearing to me from the said commitment and the evidence adduced in said matter, that the said A. J. Plants is lawfully and properly detained by the said jailor, I therefore remand the said A. J. Plants, to the custody of the said jailor in the jail of said county to be therein kept, until he be discharged by due course of law."

To the judgment the prisoner excepted, and the judge signed and sealed a bill of exceptions, which sets out the material facts of the case including the warrant and commitment. From the bill of exceptions it appears," that on the 21st day of March, 1880, the sale of spirituous liquors mentioned in the complaint, warrant and mittimus in thisproceeding was made to said complainant, J. W. Dye, by petitioner on petitioner's boat, which then lay on the Ohio side of the Ohio river opposite the town of Raven s wood; that the river was at the date aforesaid at a high stage; that said boat was tied by a cable at the time of said sale to the bank on the Ohio side of the river; that said boat was against the willows growing on the Ohio shore and against the bank on the Ohio side; that a plank from ten to twelve feet long extended from said boat to the bank on the Ohio side; that the said boat at the time of said sale was wholly and at least ninety yards within low water mark at that point, and would have been that distance on the shore on the Ohio side of said river, if said river had then been at low water mark, and that said boat was and would have been wholly within and beyond the water on the Ohio shore, if said river had then been at a medium stage, but that said boat would have been within the banks of said river."

The first assignment of error is, that the judge refused to look into the warrant of arrest and commitment, under which the petitioner was detained. There is nothing in the record to show, that the court did not examine the warrant and commitment, but the contrary appears. It seems to me, the warrant and commitment are both in substantial compliance with the law. But if the court or judge was satisfied, that an offence had been committed within the jurisdiction of the court, although the process by which the prisoner was arrested and committed was informal and not in compliance with the law, he should not discharge the prisoner on a writ of habeas corpus. Rex v. Mark, 3 East. 157; Ex parte Keans, 1 B. & C. 258; Susannah Scott, 9 B. & C. 446; State v. Brewster, 7 Vt. 118; United States v. Lawrence, 13 Blatch. 306; People v. Rowe, 4 Parker C. EL 253.

The main question presented in this case is: Did the State of West Virginia have jurisdiction of the offence committed? Was the offence committed within the jurisdiction of Jackson county or within the exclusive jurisdiction of Ohio? If it was committed within the exclusive jurisdiction of Ohio, then the prisoner should have been discharged; but he should have been remanded, and the judgment is right, if the offence was committed within the jurisdiction of West Virginia.

In Handlers lessee v. Anthony, 5 Wheat 375, in which case Chief Justice Marshall announced the opinion of the whole court, the question was, whether a grant issued from the State of Kentucky to a tract of land or a grant from the United States, when the land was supposed to be in the territory of Indiana, was valid; and this raised the question, as the court held, what was the true construction of the Virginia deed of cession of the Northwest territory to the United States made in 1783, and what was the true boundary between the States of Kentucky and Indiana? The court held, that the boundary of the State of Kentucky extended only to low water mark on the Western or...