State v. Taylor

• Decision Date: 09 December 1929
• Citation: 22 S.W.2d 222,160 Tenn. 44
• Parties: STATE ex rel. v. TAYLOR et al. KNOWLES
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

22 S.W.2d 222

160 Tenn. 44

STATE ex rel. KNOWLES v. TAYLOR et al.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

December 9, 1929

Appeal from Criminal Court, Hamilton County; C. W. Lusk, Judge.

Habeas corpus by the State, on the relation of D. C. Knowles against Charles Taylor and another. From an adverse judgment petitioner appeals. Affirmed and remanded.

Thomas Crutchfield, of Chattanooga, for plaintiff in error.

Gus A Good, Jr., of Chattanooga, for defendants in error.

COOK J.

The petitioner, D. C. Knowles, was arrested as a fugitive from justice upon a warrant issued under chapter 85 of the Acts of 1921, by a justice of the peace of Hamilton county. The warrant was issued February 15, 1929. Subsequently, on March 23, 1929, the justice of the peace committed petitioner to the custody of the sheriff of Hamilton county to await removal to the state of Georgia through extradition proceedings in which E. C. Whitlock was designated as agent for the state. On the date of his commitment by the justice of the peace, the petitioner, alleging illegal restraint by Whitlock and the sheriff of Hamilton county, sued out the writ of habeas corpus. The trial judge dismissed the petition and remanded the petitioner to the custody of E. C. Whitlock, agent for the state of Georgia. Appeal was prayed and granted. and through his assignments of error the petitioner insists that his petition should have been sustained and his detention declared illegal.

Statutes regulating the procedure in habeas corpus cases are compiled in Shannon's Code, from which we quote as follows:

Section 5532: "Although the commitment of the person detained may have been irregular, still, if the court or judge is satisfied, from the examination, that he ought to be held to bail, or committed, either for the offense charged, or any other, the order shall be made accordingly."

Section 5541: "The party detained shall be remanded to custody, * * * in every case in which the detention is authorized by law."

Petitioner was before the trial judge seeking discharge from custody of the officers, confronted by the warrant of the Governor of Tennessee, authorizing his arrest and extradition to the state of Georgia. Upon requisition of the Governor of Georgia, the Governor of Tennessee, on March 15, 1929, issued his warrant rendering the petitioner to the state of Georgia and reciting in the warrant that he should be delivered to E. C. Whitlock.

Notwithstanding alleged irregularities in the warrant and mittimus issued by the justice of the peace, if the petitioner was subject to extradition the trial judge committed no error in passing the irregularities alleged against the preliminary proceeding before the magistrate and remanding the petitioner to the custody of the agent appointed by the state of Georgia to receive him, and authorized by the warrant of the Governor of Tennessee to arrest and transport him.

Irregularity in the preliminary proceedings are immaterial, and need not be considered on review. It is only necessary to pass upon the legality of the rendition by the Governor of Tennessee and the requisition by the Governor of Georgia, which also includes the inquiry as to whether the petitioner was properly charged with an extraditable offense.

It is contended on behalf of petitioner that under the Constitution of the United States, art. 4, § 2, subsec. 2, only treason, felony, and high misdemeanor are extraditable offenses, and that it was not contemplated by the constitutional provision referred to or the act of Congress based thereon that extradition should extend to subsequent statutory misdemeanors and petty offenses.

The expense of arresting and transporting fugitives merely charged with misdemeanors might induce the executive of the state where the offense was committed to refrain from making requisition for arrest...