Taylor v. Com.

• Decision Date: 20 September 1906
• Citation: 96 S.W. 440
• Parties: TAYLOR v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

96 S.W. 440

TAYLOR v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

September 20, 1906

Appeal from Circuit Court, Clinton County.

"Not to be officially reported."

Thomas Taylor was convicted of violating the local option law, and he appeals. Affirmed.

E. Bertram, for appellant.

N. B. Hays and C. H. Morris, for the Commonwealth.

HOBSON, C.J.

Appellant, a citizen of Tennessee, was arrested there under a requisition and brought to Clinton county, Ky. for trial on a charge of violating the local option law by selling whisky in that county. He was tried on the charge for which he had been arrested, found guilty, and fined. He was then arrested under a bench warrant issued on the indictment in this case charging him with another and distinct violation of the local option law. He moved the court to quash the warrant of arrest on the ground that he had been tried for the offense for which he had been arrested in Tennessee, and that he had been arrested in Kentucky on the second charge after he had been brought here on the first and before he had opportunity to return to his home. The court overruled his motion to quash the warrant of arrest. He was tried, and, being convicted, appeals. He relies on Com. v. Hawes, 13 Bush, 697, 26 Am.Rep. 242, but that was a case where the defendant was extradited under a treaty and returned on its terms. The defendant there was not convicted of the offense for which he was extradited. The effort was in effect to use it as a pretext to get him in custody for an offense for which he could not be extradited. Here the proceeding is based on the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the same rule does not apply under them as when the defendant is extradited under a treaty between the United States and some foreign government; for any fugitive from justice may be arrested in one state and returned to another under a requisition. The precise question raised was determined adversely to appellant by the United States Supreme Court in Lascelles v. Georgia, 148 U.S. 535, 13 S.Ct. 687, 37 L.Ed. 549. The circuit court properly followed the rule disclosed in that case.

Judgment affirmed.