IN BE' WlIITl!J.
237
statute, it is the duty of the board to make. The joint motion must therefore be granted, and the returns sent back to the board, to be conformed to the requirements of the st8ltute as stated in the former orders.
In
reWRITE.
(OiJrCUI/,t Oourt, D. Minnesota. March 10, 1891.) L
Petitioner was duly cAarged before a magistrate in Wisconsin with the crime of grand larceny, and a. warrant of arrest issued, on which was based a requisition to whioh state petiUonernad 11ed. The requisition, however, stated that the crime committed was b\\rglary, and petitioner was di... chargell on habeas corpus. Thereupon a new proceeding was had before the , ' Wisoolisin magistrate, and a new warrlilit of arrest issued and a new requisition made,in which the crime was properly. !ltated as grl¥ld larceny. Petitioner, procured a .new writ of habeas corpus. He14, that the former discharge w8:s not Tes .,adjUdicata unless it was shown that it was granted on the question of identity of the person charge4 before the magistrate. ,to the governor of Minnesota,
EXTRADITION-RES AnJUDICATA-HABIIAS CORPus--DISCBARGll:.
2.
. Though the requisition does not show 'on its face that it Was based on an origlnpJ. , proceeding had in the,proper court, it is suftlcientwhere it refers to papets annexed to it, and certified to be correct, which do show that fact.
SAME-REQUISITION-SUFI'ICIENCy-ANNEXED PAPERS.
.
'
Appeal from District CO)1rt. I. McCajfer,ty, for petitioner. W. I1. Frawley, for respondent. .
James
, SHIRAS, J. Briefly stated, the facts in this case are as follows:' On the 20th day of January, 1891, the governor of Minnesota issued a war.. Tant in due form. to the sheriff of Ramsey county, reciting that the governor of Wisconsin had demanded the. arrest and delivery of one Joseph White as a. from justice, the said White being charged by affidavit made before a magistrate in the county of Eau Claire, in the state of Wisconsin, with the crime of grand larceny, and directing the said sheriff' to arrest said White, and to deliver him to John Higgins, the agent appointed by the governor of the state of receive said White. The arrest havil)gbeenmade as directed, thereupon e. writ of habeas corpus was .sued outby said White from the United States district cOl;lrt for the district of Minnesota, and upon the return made thereto. a hearing washad.in said court, and an order entereddischil.rg'7 iug said writ, and rem.anq,jng the petitioner to the cllstody of the sheriff of Ramsey county. From, this ruling an .appeal was taken' to the circuit cout:t, under the provisions of section 763 of the Revised Statutes of the Unitl:>d. Statea, and by the consent of parties the same has been lit the . term:. of . From the :rooprd on file. it appears that on 17th !lay. off January,; 18\U, a bIG-uudei Thompson\1,nder oath ,Wtts' .filed before: E.: M.:BARTLETT,judge' of-the municipal court of the city of Eau Cllib'e l Wis., charging J oseph;W"hite
238
P'EDER4.'L .IWJ'ORTER-,r vol.
45.
witk unltlwfql1y and"feloniously,stealing and carrying away'20 bolts'of sHk.,of the, value of $1,200, and; 15 ladies' plush·cloakB, of the value of 8600 j \ihe, :property of Andrew Ht!>lm and said'Gunder/l'bompson, the offense being charged to have been committed in Eau Claire county, Wis. In support of this complaint several affidavits were filed, detailing circumstances tendiIlgto show the guilt of said White, and that immediately after the commission of the crime he had fled from the state of Wisconsin to the state of,,:M:innesota. Upon tbis showing the judge of said municipal court issued a' warrant for the arrest of said White under date of 17, 1891, and, based upon these proceedings, an application was made by the district attorney of Eau Claire county to the gO\Ternor of Wisconsin for a requisition on the governor of Minnesota for the and return of the fugitive. appears that on the 6th and again on 15th days ofJanuary, 1891 requisitions had been issued by the governor of Wisconsin upon the govetnor of Minnesota f{)r the a,rrest and return of White, both of whieb had and warrants of arrest issued thereon.':JI;l 'these requisitions the crime alleglld to have been committed by White was stated to be burglary, whereas in fact the proceedthe offense. to be grand larceny. When 8I'r!*lted, upon these' warrants, White procured the issuance of writs of habea8 corpu8 froIn the Hon. Judge KERR, ofthe district court of Ramsey county, Minn., and also from the Hon. R,' R. NElSON of this federal district, and was thereby freed from arrest·.' . Thereupon the district attoruey of Eau Claire county, Wis., caused a new proceeding to be begun betore the judge of the Ulunicipal court of EauClairecity, and, as already stated, upon the complaint and affidavits filed before him on the 17th day 'of 'January,' ,1891, -the 'judge of said court issued his warrant of arrest. for said· White'on' a charge of grand larceny; and, based thereon; the 'gi:>vernorofWj,seollsin issued requisition upon the governor fOIl the alTest:,of said White, charged with· the crime of grand arid, the wllrrantbeing issueu, White was arrested thereon, and again sued out a writ of habeas corpus, which is tbe proceeding now before this :courp appeal. 'The main upon which the release of the prisoner is sought is thatibythepl'oceedings had' before Judge KERR, and the 'order therein made,'1he, matoor at bnrhasbeen fully'and finally atljutlicated,and stands ires: alijuditllta. It will be noticed that none of the proceellings White: \vasdischarged upon habea8COTp'/18relatedto the com.. pluhit and warrant of arrest' issued by the judge of the municipal court ofEauClaire <;lityunderdate'of January 17th. The contention is that the several proceedings in fact based :upon the oneoR'ense, and that the 'orders heretofore madelreIeasing hini from the. arrests' made upon thlfprior proceedings, must< be deeiued to be adjudications upon the queetion·whetheJi White can be extradited .for trial for thatoffense. Counsel have very fUlny: and,: ably: presented their viewei:on' these 'questions, aqd have cited 'many a,uth'oritiei thereon. I shall Mtatterript to from, or to poiot'out,whereih differences exist in 'the [aetsof the j
239
eh1r.icases. His entirely posSible thattb.e: '.plea of res: adjudicata might, uDder some circumstances',' Ibe available in $'Casewherein: extradition was sought upon a or third warrant issued for that purpose; Thus, if upon an arrest made upon a warrant granted hy the governor, the question ofidentityofthe:person arreste,dwiththe one charged with an offense had been 'properly presented, heard, and determined upon a return to a writ of habea" corpUs, the 'decision being, in favor of the one arrested, itfuight be that,the same could be succestlfuUy pleadedw a second' a:rreilt. Thus-,: if in Jthis case' it appllared that upon the hearing qefore Judge KERR, ,or upon that before Judge NEUlONj! the question of identity had been presented and detennmedin faV'or "afthe relator, it that sucl;1 and thaUbere1ator should not .again be called upon totneet that-rIsl>ue; If, hoWever, the person arrested is releasednponhabf!a8 c0':Pu.B tIponthe grclundbt'informalityor mistakes'in: the proceedings; or updn sonie groun<%, wbicg. dqcs not cide the question whether upon the real facts the one arrested should be extradited for trial, suchi-elease; not being upon the irnerits,should' hot be a barto,an arrest upon perfected papers or proceedings., ' ;, It is by counsel 'fortelator that: it should be' Rssumedthat the priordecisio'ns, and particblarly that 'moot) by' Judge KERR, wllsbased upon substantial ground,isuchaslackof proof of identity. Theorders made in :the prior ,proceedings wholly; fail to' show upon what ground ,the release of 'therelafur was 'granted... ;The traverse or issue takellby the. relater to ;thereturnmade by thesherlff fails to sat 111> the question of identity....socthat' upon the face of .thetecordit canIiot be said that this issue was presentedj' To support the plea:of res adjudicata: the l JWas 11 pon the relator to. show. .that some; had been heard 'aIld dllte.rL 1llined ill'his< favor in the prior proceedings, of Iluoh as: to Ci}Ill. stitute an estoppel upon it reinvestigation: of,the same question.' ,{ritha <Tecordfailled :W, show the fact, waS :admi<lsible for ,the purpose. ,Racket, Co. v. Sickles, 24 How. 333; U. 8;:V'. EHnej ,g: WalI; 185; Oromtd611v. Sac Co., 94 U. S. 351-;&55; Davisv. BrouJn, TeL 423. the absence: of evidence, either upon the:face of the record'ol"froni:ex;. triusicsourees\;sbowing that the prior discharge from" arrest granted the t:elator was based upon a hearing and determlnatioll olsome matetill.liS'sue, .like that bfridentity,itcannot beheld that anything is shown 'Rting an estop'pelagainsttheproceedings now pending for the arrest and removal for trial of therelatoi'. As already stated, these proceedings are basedtipoo:new process, beginning with the cotnplaint made befQre the judge oHhe municipal court of Eati Claire city, and thusthe case is brought,within the, ruling of the supreme court in & paluMilbu.rnf9 Pet. 704, whercinitis said: ' , .. A discharge of a party:under a writ, of habeas C01'PUS from tbe process :llp.dllf whjeh he is impris,oDed, from any further undertbat. PFQCeBs.bu.t not may.Qfl iWlued
ote:.
t'l{ain'st hiW ,
_.",;.
',J.l
.-
", "
. The, ()theJ; 'o.bjectionS,'Ul"ged.,' to thesuffi iency of the 'wal'1'Qni' of' and the papers on which it is based are to the point that it pear that it is a proceeding pending in a proper court; that it
240
DDERALREPORTEB,
vol. 45.
does not appear on the face of the requisition that the relator is a fugitive from justicejand that the affida.vits submitted to the governor of Wisconsin do not make out a prima far:W case against the relator. In therElcord submitted to the governor ofWisconsin, when the requisition was a,ppJied for, it is clearly shown that the relator was charged before the judge of the munioipalcoi.Irt of Eau Olaire city with the crime of grand larceny, said charge being in the form of an information or complaint,:ro.ade under oath.and supported by competent affidavits, whioh also averred that the relator had, .after· the commission of the crime aIhim, fled from Wisconsin.to St. Paul, Minn. In the reqissued by the governor of Wisconsin it is recited thatit appears ;by the annexed papers, which I certify to be authen': that Joseph White.stands charged by affidavit with the crime of grand larceny, committed in the county Eau Claire in this state, and that be has fled trom the justice of this state, and taken refuge in the state of Minnesota: Now; there,'" '" III' etc." . . It is tr\le that the requisition does .not recite that the relator stands charged before a magistrste, but it refers to the annexed papers, whicb are certi6ed to be authentic,and these papers clearly show the fact of the cOD)plaint, the nature of the crime charged, the filing of the complaint andauppQrting affidavits before the judge of the municipal court of Eau Olail'Elcity, and the factthat the relator had fled from Wisconsin to Minnesota; Under the ruling of the supreme court in Roberf.8v. Reilly, 116 U. S. 80,6 Sup. Ot. Rep. 291, all that was necessary to be shown to the. governor of Minnesota was that Joseph White was substantially charged.with a crime against the laws of the state of Wisconsin, either by an -indictment found, or by an affidavit filed before a magistrate in that state, and certified to be authentic by the governor of Wisconsin, and that White had fled from. that state into Minnesota. The record submitted to the governor of Minnesota contained evidence of all theaematerial matters, and. in determining whether the evidence submjtted to him was SUfficient, the governor was not limited to the mere recitaJ,scontained in the requisition issutld under the signature of the governor of Wisconsin, but was entitled to consider the facts set forth in the papers annexed to said requisition, and certified to as authentic by the governor of Wisconsin. The evidence thus submitted entirely jl,1stified the finding recited in the warrant of arrest issued by the governor of Minnesota, that "the said Joseph White stands charged by affidavit made before a magistrate of the county of Eau Olaire, in the state of WiscOQsin,.with thecrime:bfgrand larceny, alleged to have been committed on the 31st day of December. 1890," etc. Tl>""'e: nothing, therefore,. appearing Upon the face of the record of these prot:eeaings that shows that the relator is illegally held under arrest j but,on the contrary, it appears that the arrest was lawfully made, in pursuance of the warrant. issued by the governor of this state,upon due and sufficient cause. The order of the district court discharging the writ, and remanding thereIator to the custody of the sheriff of Ramsey county, is therefore affirmed·. Q
;.1'
BRUSR ,ELEOTRIC CO. 17. ELECTRIO IMP. CO.
241
In re
SImrlONB.
(C4n'cu1.t Court, E. D. NmJJ York. HABEAS CORPUs-RES ADroDIOATA.
February 18, 1891.)
A writ of habeas corpus will not issue where it appears by the petition that the question at Issue has been deelded adversely to the petitioner by another judge in a oauee on trial in the same oourt, especially when luoh decision can be reviewed by the full court.
,At lBw. Petition forhabeaa .corpus. · Richd.rdNmJJcoolbe, C/w;rles A. Hess, E. H. Murphy, and J. J. Jayce, fot petitioner.· ' . , Edward Mitchell, U. S. Dist. Atty., and AbriOO J. Rose, Ex.-Asst. U. S. Atty.,· for 'respondent. , WALLACE, J. This writ is refused, because, as appears by the petition,. the question upon which a decision is sought has been considered apd. decided adversely to the contention for the petitioner by Judge BENEDICTjin a cause now on trial in this court. That decision, until it is reversed· upon a review in this court, ought to be authoritative; otherwise there might be conflicting adjudications upon the same question in the same court. It would be unseemly and prejudicial to the orderly administration of justice for one judge to revie,v and reverse, in a collateral prt>ceeding, a decision made by another judge sitting in the same court,!and especially so in a cause now in progress 'in this court,in which the decisioncompIained'of'can be reviewed by the full court if the cause proceeds, and the petitioner is convicted,but can never be reviewed if the Pl3titiOnel should be discharged upon this proceeding.
'BatteR ELECTRIC
Co. et ale 17.
ELECTRIC IMP.
Co.
(OO'cuit Oourt, N. D. OaW·orniQ.January 1!6,1891.) 1. · Thf!Brulh eleotrio light patent, No. is valid, and its 1lrst six ola1msare IDfril1ged by the Wood lamp. FolloWing Bnulh El.ectrlc 00. v. Ft. Wa-yne Ele<>WtO 00., .., Feel. Rep. 284. The .questions involved depending IOle1y on the construotlon of tWlI patents .which have· been fully examined in many of the United States circuit cou'rts,and !Ui ·. injunotlQn at the final appearing to be inevitable, an injunction pencknte ZUt Will be granted, DotWitbBtanding laches of the complainant in 88serting itnights. . , INroNOTION·.
INVBNTIONs-b'FJllNGBMEl'IT.
·
..
to
.plainant.:
InEqUity.
liagg;.n
v.45F.no.4-16
Ne88 and Robt. & 'PallWr, for ;re,spondent.