*1 TERM, 1894. 811 N, C.] Hall. State the care which the the offence de-
record with gravity that the must mands, and we are opinion judgment Affirmed. be affirmed. WILLIAM HALL and JOHN DOCKERY.
STATE v. Justice—Interstate Fugitive Authority of from Extradition—
Governor. provisions prisoner and held under the of section 1165of 1. A arrested detained, lawfully appear unless it be made to The Code cannot (cid:127) Congress, paised he is liable to extradition under Act of 2 IV. pursuance section of Art. Constitution of the United States. sense, can, alleged justice to have fled from the
'2. No one jurisdiction he has never in the domain of whose territorial State present corporally the commission of the crime. been since who, having justice committed a crime fugitive from is one 8. A escape jurisdiction, evade the law and fleestherefrom order to punishment. constructively by being, present in a 4 been Where one has fiction, deemed, by legal agency an have followed or instru- [ mentality accomplish purpose, put in him to a criminal motion justice warrant the such State so as to he is not a deliver him to the authorities of such Executive of this State to requisition demanding the Governor of the * State. n 5.It is Legislature exercise of its competent of a for the courtesy sovereign powers, an to a sister and as act of reserved surrender, upon requisition, provide statute for the State, although they have persons indictable for murder justice.” “fled Mclver, in habeas tried before J. corpus,
Proceedings Hall and were incarcerated Dockery petitioners on a issued a Justice of of Cherokee warrant County, jail Peace, them with charging being fugitives in said Andrew fiom Tennessee for State one Bryson. killing IN THE SUPREME COURT. *2 the prisoners, refused and recom- Judge discharge of and extradition, mitted them to to await the warrant jail they appealed.
After out the affidavit and the of the warrant Jus- setting thereunder, Peace, tice of the and their arrest show that they “ Term, 1892, at Fall were indicted for the murder of they Term, and Andrew at were tried and Bryson, Spring and convicted, to the Court and obtained appealed Supreme trial the new out of the last-mentioned (setting judgment Court, as in 114 N. C. reported Reports, page 909). Term, 1894, further that at show the
“They Spring judg- ment and of Court were filed opinion Supreme said Court, and to the bar of Superior they, being brought Court, a trial demanded by jury, whereupon Judge informed the Solicitor that he must either try prisoners, entitled to their and they discharge, thereupon Solicitor entered nol. and the were pros., prisoners discharged. that further show thereafter
“They were immediately they Sheriff, arrested and taken in the war- custody by upon Peace, rant of the and Justice that are advised they that, and believe under the Constitution and laws and United are entitled to a trial they said jury Carolina, indictment in the State of North and that still they stand murder with the of said charged Bryson cannot, of this and whilst so be committed charged, or extradited to the State Tennessee for trial for the same offence. “ The further show that at the time of the petitioners Tennessee, were not nor alleged killing Bryson they in said been State since the they alleged killing, Tennessee, are not they fugitives they are and citizens of have been North and at Carolina, ever the time of were killing Bryson actually alleged Carolina, North and have not since been Tennessee. N. 0.] further that are not they alleged show They guilty elsewhere, in the State of Tennessee or and pray
murder issue, habeas directed corpus the writ hold in cus- Sheriff, petitioners or to whomsoever may your him or them have your petitioners tody, commanding Honor immediately before your purpose inquiring detention, into cause of their commitment and custody.” discharged and recom- His Honor refused to discharge prisoners, extradition, the warrant of mitted them to to await jail petitioners appealed. *3 Q. for Ferguson,
Mr. petitioners. General, the
The for State. Attorney and arrested, The are now defendants were J.: Avery, Code, held the statute sec. which 1165), under (The provides named, “on of therein one certain officers any judicial any fugitive in him that information laid before satisfactory nft.bA Rtatft fnminiifefl, m-q. the within the in of the law the State United offence which any by either capi- the offence-was committed punishable, which vea,r in or upwards or by imprisoninent-fjor tally authority, shall full have nower andáis prison, apd for~said fugitive, warrant hereby reauhceA-te-isaae the six the State"for space to jail eomrSiFliim within the authorities of the demanded months, unless sooner committed, been the offence may pur- State wherein in made that case the Act of pro- suant to Congress It is that the cannot be law- prisoners etc. manifest vided,” law, of the detained, the unmistakable language under fully are liable to has been made to appear it unless in under Act of Congress, passed pursuance extradition of the Constitution the United IV., sec. of Art. for the surrender States, in order provide persons IN THE SUPREME COURT. “ with criminal offences who shall flee from charged justice State.” found another were tried murder Cherokee prisoners County, held and, was C.,N. that if appeal, (114 the de- the time of ceased, at fatal receiving was injury, Tennessee, and prisoners State of were the State of Carolina, North the former commonwealth had alone offence. The jurisdiction prisoners, .the.facts, were deemed to have were accompanied missile'sent" them deadly border, "across the and to when fatal constructively, present wound was have .been power inflicted. As our statute no confers to detain actually at the to surrender demand of custody, the Executive does not fall within person of a definition from justice according inter- by the Courts given United States to pretation clause of Federal Constitution for interstate providing extradition, and the Act of Congress pursuance of passed it, is, us whether a question can, in before ” law, flee from contemplation State of Tennessee he has never been but only construc- actually its within territorial Upon limits. there question tively *4 is abundant not from the authority, emanating foremost text-writers some of the ablest of the most re- jurists .Courts, State but from the spectable Court of the Supreme States, whose United it is to peculiar province declare what shall be interpretation Federal Constitution given and the statutes enacted by of its Congress pursuance pro- visions, which are declared that by to be the instrument law of If the land. we can supreme surrender under our statute only fugitives within of the Act of meaning it sufficient seem Ex Congress, cite parte Reggel, it is held that where arrested aas person has a insist “to he right was proof-that within demand- at State the time he is alleged to ing have committed the TERM, 1894. N. G] State from her withdrew juris- and consequently
crime charged, her criminal not be reached by pro- he could so that diction have never with- is prisoners It admitted cess.” Tennessee, jurisdiction drawn time the homicide was been, at the either under to arrest committed, since, process issuing or exposed them. and cal so principle, in case important But involving interest on part, especially, to excite general culated in not warranted only citing we feel the legal profession, Where charged from other authorities. quoting of a means misrepre false cheating by pretences, with he sent to another whereby pro sentation writing, the State which writing of value cures something where the constructively present is deemed to be goes, or used and where money is successfully false pretence liable to be indicted and is obtained, consequently property the reach of the there, if he comes within and punished Adams, Y), 3 Denio (N. its Courts. People process Alabama, in a case exactly Court But the Supreme Ala., state the Mohr., 63), principle applica- re point (In The defendant was and force. clearness ble here with great false prosecutor with pretences, cheating, charged that he had it was admitted of Pennsylvania, limits of that State. within never actually gone to our minds that crimes which It is clear said : Court committed within the not but are only constructively actually the, fall do not within demanding jurisdiction Constitution embraced cases to be class of intended rule, unless the Such, least, is the at Act of Congress. into such State departs criminal afterwards goes its jurisdic- himself to sovereignty thus it, subjecting try is, The reason jurisdiction tion. sense, be can, in alleged that no one
crime lacking, territorial domain of whose the State fled IN THE 816 SUPREME COURT. has_nny_fir__been corporal y present 1 since the jurisdiction — lhe_crime.” cited, That Court to sustain commission view, authorities, other Wharton’s Criminal among Pleading 231; case, 106 Ex Mass., 223; (8th Ed.), Kingsbury’s parte McLean, Smith, 121, 3 Noyle, St., Wilcoxv. 34 Ohio 520. Dict., defines a from as (Law Bouvier 551) fugitive justice “ one, committed a crime one who within having jurisdiction, into another order to evade the law and avoid goes pun ishment.” The same also that the writer executive of says cannot called deliver upon up person charged a criminal offence in another with unless it appear “ that such is a person fugitive justice.” Rapalje (Law “ Diet., one, defines a who 555) fugitive justice having committed a crime flees therefrom into jurisdiction, in order to See, another jurisdiction escape punishment.” 1 also, 508, Law Dict., Abbott’s for definition of fleeing.” to indictment To hold that who liable person, i reason is a ..from-the pL.his, presence, constructive ; of-a within whose limits he has since never gone ; offence, involves as an error great commission.of to maintain that one has stood still and never ventured j of another, the reach has fled from him to within avoid who has fled cannot One never be a Jones fugitive. 'injury. Leonard, Iowa, 646, 106; Enc., Am. and Eng. Extradition, note Moore 2 vol., work (in 582, et after extract sec. seq.), quoting already given case, cites a number other cases wherein Gov- Reggel’s ernors under well-considered of their opinions legal advisers, have and acted recognized principle cannot be said to flee from a where he person place been, which, fiction, but to he is actually legal deemed to have an followed instrumentality, agency put him, in motion a criminal accomplish purpose. Spear Extradition, 396 to cites discusses the (Law pp. authorities whether a can bearing upon question *6 1894. N. 817 0.] State Hall. into a a State which he
be fugitive entered, same conclusion at reaches the which we have arrived, maintains that a arguendo person who has been as cannot sent extradited a back from the de- on State manding requisition Executive who surren- him, to dered answer crime committed while he was a fugi- tive, one who is taken because forcibly not, does away fact, law or in flee from contemplation justice. The author an force, that to assume that abduction says, un- der process, fleeing, gross legal absurdity, quite theory bad as fugitives by construction.” Had it not been Constitution of provided by the United IV., States section that “A 2), (Art. person charged treason, State with crime, other any felony who shall and be found shall, flee justice on demand the Executive authority the State from which fled, etc., States, he has up,” delivered as to the right demand and to'surrender power fugitives justice, relations to each would have sustained other analagous to those between existing nations. independent Cutshall, State v. C., If no 110 N. were now in stipulation treaty force the Government of the United surrender, States to requiring Canada, on> of the authorities of requisition persons charged Dominion, with murder those of such guilty crimes would find this a safe In the country asylum. absence of of law provision upon the any imposing Executive State of North Carolina the duty surrendering, requi States, sition of the Governors of other charged with a criminal offence demanding except as shall be shown to have fled from within the mean Constitution, of the Federal must ing Governor search in vain to issue a authority warrant of extradition in like us, case this before inwas effect conceded in In re Sultan, decided at this term. now, statute While passed it murder to wil- making
115—52 IN THE COURT. SUPREME Carolina North in motion within
fully put kill a human should being neighboring force which *7 to amenable such constitutional not be State, objection might Taylor’s State v. Knight, Rep., (44), that discussed as law. But case, to be an ex would, as post it facto the State as may, reserved powers sovereign exercise ofjds State, a statute for the to sister provide by of comity an act of., who, like the pris surrender, persons upon requisition, ¡are for murder oners, indictable If it be shall justice. have never fled proved they in fact in North Carolina and deceased were the prisoners inflicted, fatal wound wTas law may in Tennessee authority the Governor the to issue be enacted giving still Meantime, deliver them it his requisition. .warrant can be done to for this casus asked, what provide bemay answer, in the language Spear, supra, omissus? We may “ Nothing,' by until extradition there any process, page * * * statutes law for it. may is some authorit/of / not either to furnish a now remedy enacted supplied Courts, sem- or without any Federal State law.” Were omission, it to legislative blanee right, supply of, more to authority, pernicious a criminal usurpation two, of, scores of than the interests public escape deliberately Courts cannot legislate criminals. Appellate of crime without moral incurring for punishment of the criminal suffers as that accountability grave the usurpation. General, frankness, with commendable The Attorney that he find no sustain con- could authority admitted Court It is not tention. single appellate pretended writer, or law given Federal respectable than that us. to the law adopted other interpretation n statutes, constitutions cannot amend or override idea, dilatory and, anticipate Legisla- higher of the for the event providing safety public tures by N. C.]
that anarchists should missiles across a project deadly can be border. Mobs under common law, suppressed wherever an they assemble for unlawful purpose attempt into execution. if put purpose But they could not, it would be the not of the duty Legislature, Courts, to for their If provide suppression. there foundation for that the apprehending elements of disorderly life to take society watching opportunity destroy can see property, provided they way escape through laws, of defective representatives loopholes people meet, must be trusted not anticipate, emergencies arise. Neither actual nor possible consequences should deter the law as Judges executing written. plainly *8 inconvenienti, The argumentum ab when used to about bring law, modification of a well-established should principle be addressed to lawmaker, it whose is to province pro- vide a remedy evils out of its growing enforcement. Addressed to under such it Judges, circumstances, is an invitation or a offered to violate sacred temptation their in order to obligations appease public. case,
In 1 Dev., Court declared Spear’s Supreme to his entitled writ of upon a habeas prisoner discharge the term where of the Court corpus, expired pending murder, trial for he could not because in again put for that offence. The defect in jeopardy the law subse- was statute, remedied by the Court to quently' continue allowing into the next week were tried felony when the being - Court, week But the expired. composed Tayloe, Hall HENDERSON, did not for a moment, hesitate because man On the guilty might escape. contrary, Judge Hall (cid:127)said: The or innocence of the is as little the guilt prisoner it be, as the merits of can subject case when inquiry is brought before this Court on a collateral law.” question Courts enforce not but as laws simply punish guilty, towell the innocent. The which fails protect to provide IN COURT. THE SUPREME must understood and of a man
for the extradition guilty as a be invoked to, protection because adhered cause, innocent, without against prosecuted and invasion of involved personal liberty annoyance, expense There was error. The should in extradited. prisoners being Error. been discharged. in is a fact this J. It agreed petition Clark, (dissenting): slew the deceased who defendants in this State being the line in The defendants were indicted over Tennessee. was On in for the murder and convicted. appeal, this State reversed, Hall, (State Court holding conviction was C., there was a defect of because jurisdiction 114 N. Tennessee, that in offence was committed legal were in crime Ten- committing parties contemplation Tennessee, committed they they nessee. If were when V crime, Carolina, are now North con- legal they | If are necessarily fugitives they justice. i'templation Tennessee, Carolina, in North com- they were crime, then it was error to hold that the defen- mitted the not be in North Carolina. dants could convicted They should be tried which were when jurisdiction held to be in offence was That has been perpetrated. law, Tennessee. If that sound the defendants were *9 fact, Tennessee, in and in are in North then, law, now, in, and within the Carolina, are contemplation they legal law, and of extradition from fugitives purport language is intended who, This term to embrace those hav- justice."” in one to committed crime endeavor evade justice ing in anoth State whither the of by being ordinary process er^i where crime was committed will not reach the State That is the of these are They them. situation defendants. themselves from in another State. sheltering process being are murder in are now charged with Tennessee and They of the Courts of that State can- ordinary process where N. O.]
State Haul. can be had only not reach them. for trial in the They State crime, of the the commission of to Gov- by application to be of the State where found. ernor They are of extradition. proper subjects Hudson, of mob,
If side Jersey should occupying York, city of New from shell shore of the opposite should city Delaware cannonade its Philadelphia, liable to no members would be in New punishment Jersey because, the decisions of the Courts “in under contemplation law,” the mobs are New York But Pennsylvania. true, as defendants, if it is is contended the mem- of the mob cannot be extradited because mob bers would, cities, be a singular was those state of things.* . Savannah, St, Louis, This would also ruling place Memphis, Cincinnati, and hundreds other cities and Louisville assemble, at the towns mob which with any might mercy across the State line. long range, weapons the Constitution these States recites preamble it was ordained “to form a more union and perfect 2, IV., Article insure domestic sec. tranquility.” treason, “That State with person charged provides, crime, flee or other shall from who felony State, shall, demand of the Executive found fled, he be delivered up, which authority the crime.” removed to the State having jurisdiction to be construction, and little calculated It be a restricted a more union establish domestictranquility,” “form perfect of this to hold that “fugitive justice,” purview who, as actually, well provision, applies persons being committed, in the State the crime was where potentially, himself the same. A afterwards departed £ places the « outside the limits of State from thence to commit t crime said afterwards going within ever avoids said as I arrest, truly into State to “flees justice” avoid who, crime, flees from the committed having sub-«j sequently. *10 IN THE SUPREME COURT. mail a
If an sent infernal machine express receiver, com- and kills the it is murder distant State explodes sender, another mitted the latter State. The skulking if to arrest is as truly avoid had the machine to its destination then accompanied extradition, and the fled. The constitutional provision remembered, thereof, it should be laws passed pursuance criminal, not should They are but remedial provisions. intended therefore be construed effect liberally purpose extend into served, to be which is to another through Executive, of its of the State whose medium process no laws have been violated. This having validity process be to arrest the its borders can made available beyond virtue of with crime the Governor person charged found, such is under the where acting endorse county may extradition just magistrate a summons issued the Peace Justice of under The county, Code. Civilized man that must recoil from practical ruling “a to State no man’s boundaries territory adjacent
land,” and that across a murder committed privileged It said first laid State line. safely Judge follows, “a down from which result ruling, practically did not of his decision. foresee and effect We purport correct, errors, are called not to perpetuate, true others have since followedhim. It is restricted construction has been several Courts this clause by placed merely text-writers. But their per- opinions held, suasive entitled only as we have often authority,” due to weight the reasons they give. Years that it would Chancellor Kent Com. said (1 ago decisis, rule of do too stare strongly “to press that over one cases English is recollected thousand books have been Even series American overruled. conclusive, and the revision of decisions are not always *11 823 N. 0.] Hall. into a itself mere expedi- decision often resolves question added force the fact His remark has received since ency.” now number several thousand. Espe- that overruled cases cannot be nullified or ren- a constitutional cially .provision of a Judge. of no effect the erroneous When ruling dered us, it is not the Consti- error, is the choice presented if This is so must be tution, clearly which disregarded. of a Court to amend is to the
Constitution superior power erroneous interpretation. not above Courts do not claim yet infallibility in a so errors, matter correcting especially clearly against as a intent and of the Federal Constitution very meaning that, a murder has been committed ruling States, a State either try yet may powerless United him found its borders or to surrender the murderer when be tried. where may in this and this There is no authority precedent not ham- with us a case “of novel we are impression,” being to the as is most from such construction clause pered giving intent and It is consonant to our views of its true purport. statutes broader than the true the several States pass might Constitution, but it is the Federal also quoted Federal fail to do might true some of them so. of so security leaving Constitution does contemplate boundaries, towns, depend- cities near State many lying of the Legisla- the inadvertence or ent upon unwillingness more ture of a State to an extradition pass neighboring Besides, our statute than liberal the Federal Constitution. broader, arrest of “any and authorizes the § (Code “ out crime therein specified who has committed the fugitive” A of the State and within the States.” United a crime within who, committed simply having the ordinary himself State^keeps beyond process the Supreme such State. The two cases cited S., 642, 114 U. Court of the Ex United parte Reggel, IN THE SUPREME COURT. S., and Roberts v. U. read Reily, according letter, sustain rather than instead spirit militate against In case he can be this view. which demanded of the execu- in which he tive of found. had been there no constitutional
Even provision *12 statute, no between States in a comity existing Federal would authorize and to Union surrender require State of committed murder that State in this State. Should a man on while French soil standing kill man fire across the Rhine on German territory, and the French while its government, declaring own courts to should at same refuse, time incompetent try slayer, done, as is him tried, here to deliver to be Germany Yet, follow? war promptly certainly, protection the criminal should be less between comity greater, States in the This same Union. between States comity recog- nizes chartered other It should cer- States. corporations that murder is a tainly offence at common recognize high a sister should refuse we to shelter against for trial. demanded perpetrator In I think there was refusing discharge prisoner, no error.
MacRae, J.: I in the above dissent. join