History
  • No items yet
midpage
Goodale v. Splain
42 App. D.C. 235
D.C.
1914
Check Treatment
Mr. Chief Justice Siiepakd

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.

Case Details

Case Name: Goodale v. Splain
Court Name: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Date Published: May 4, 1914
Citation: 42 App. D.C. 235
Docket Number: No. 2620
Court Abbreviation: D.C.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.