Goodale v. Splain
Goodale v. Splain
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the Court:
The court did not err in discharging the writ and remanding the petitioners to the custody of the marshal for delivery to the agent of the State of Wisconsin.
An affidavit in accordance with the criminal procedure of the State is a sufficient charge of an offense against the laws of the State to warrant extradition, Re Strauss, 197 U. S. 324, 331, 49 L. ed. 774, 778, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 535.
The demand for extradition founded on said complaint, and the warrant issued thereon, is in compliance with the law. No objection has in fact been made to its formality. Without analyzing the complaint, it is sufficient to say that it substantially charges the crime; and that is enough. Pierce v. Creecy, 210 U. S. 387, 52 L. ed. 1113, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 714; Strassheim v. Daily, 221 U. S. 281, 282, 55 L. ed 735, 737, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 558.
In habeas corpus proceedings seeking to discharge one who has been held for delivery to the agent of a State upon demand of the governor thereof, the court will not consider matters of defense to the charge, or whether the proceedings were instigated by malice or improper motives. Depoilly v. Palmer, 28 App. D. C. 324, 328, and cases there cited.
The judgment is affirmed with costs. , Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- GOODALE v. SPLAIN
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Extradition; Affidavit; Sufficiency; Habeas Corpus. 1. An affidavit in accordance with the criminal procedure of a foreign State is a sufficient charge of an offense against the laws of that State to warrant extradition. 2. The substantial charge of a crime denounced by the statute of a foreign State is sufficient to warrant extradition. 3. An affidavit for extradition, which charges that the accused falsely represented that one of them was inventor of a certain device, that it was being manufactured by a corporation of which the accused were officers, and that they would sell the affiant stock for $500 on which she would realize a $1,000, and further states that the affiant, believing such representation, paid the accused certain money, contains a sufficiently substantial charge, to warrant extradition, of false pretenses under the statute of a foreign State prescribing pum ishment for any person who designedly, by false pretenses and with intent to defraud, shall obtain money from another. 4. In habeas corpus proceedings to obtain the discharge of a person held under extradition sought by a foreign State, this court will not consider matters of defense to the discharge, nor the question whether the extradition wps instigated by malice or improper motives. (Citing Depoilly v. Palmer, 28 App. D. C. 324.)