In Re Extradition of Blankmeyer

Ohio Court of Appeals

In Re Extradition of Blankmeyer

197 N.E. 594, 50 Ohio App. 151, 18 Ohio Law. Abs. 513, 3 Ohio Op. 477, 1935 Ohio App. LEXIS 515

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 21, 1935

DocketNo 2990

StatusPublished

This text of 197 N.E. 594 (In Re Extradition of Blankmeyer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Extradition of Blankmeyer, 197 N.E. 594, 50 Ohio App. 151, 18 Ohio Law. Abs. 513, 3 Ohio Op. 477, 1935 Ohio App. LEXIS 515 (Ohio Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

By LLOYD, J.

On May 22, 1934, the Governor of Pennsylvania issued his requisition to the Governor of Ohio for the arrest of the defendant, E. E. Blankmeyer, and for his delivery to C. B. Rotz, a duly appointed agent of the State of Pennsylvania, to receive the defendant. The information or affidavit upon which the requisition was based was filed in the court of a justice of the peace of Franklin County, Pennsylvania, of which court Mr. Rotz was a constable. This information was verified by Rotz upon information and belief, he, as the record presented to this court shows, having no personal knowledge of the facts stated therein.

On May 31, 1934 the Governor of Ohio honored the requisition of the Governor of Pennsylvania and issued a warrant to the sheriff of Lucas County, directing him forthwith to arrest Blankmeyer and to bring him before any judge of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or Court of Common Pleas in which jurisdiction he might be found. The writ was executed and pursuant thereto Blankmeyer was brought before a judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Lucas County who upon hearing discharged Blankmeyer for the reason that the requisition papers were defective in that they contained no affidavit or other evidence of the facts constituting the offense of obtaining money under false pretenses with which Blankmeyer was charged, by one having actual knowledge thereof, as required by §110,. GC.

Our judgment is that the action of the Court of Common Pleas was justified by Rice v Ames, 180 U. S., 371 and Glucksman v Henkel, 221 U. S., 508, 513.

Judgment- affirmed.

RICHARDS and OVERMYER, JJ, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

By LLOYD, J.

On May 22, 1934, the Governor of Pennsylvania issued his requisition to the Governor of Ohio for the arrest of the defendant, E. E. Blankmeyer, and for his delivery to C. B. Rotz, a duly appointed agent of the State of Pennsylvania, to receive the defendant. The information or affidavit upon which the requisition was based was filed in the court of a justice of the peace of Franklin County, Pennsylvania, of which court Mr. Rotz was a constable. This information was verified by Rotz upon information and belief, he, as the record presented to this court shows, having no personal knowledge of the facts stated therein.

On May 31, 1934 the Governor of Ohio honored the requisition of the Governor of Pennsylvania and issued a warrant to the sheriff of Lucas County, directing him forthwith to arrest Blankmeyer and to bring him before any judge of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or Court of Common Pleas in which jurisdiction he might be found. The writ was executed and pursuant thereto Blankmeyer was brought before a judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Lucas County who upon hearing discharged Blankmeyer for the reason that the requisition papers were defective in that they contained no affidavit or other evidence of the facts constituting the offense of obtaining money under false pretenses with which Blankmeyer was charged, by one having actual knowledge thereof, as required by §110,. GC.

Our judgment is that the action of the Court of Common Pleas was justified by Rice v Ames, 180 U. S., 371 and Glucksman v Henkel, 221 U. S., 508, 513.

Judgment- affirmed.

RICHARDS and OVERMYER, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 N.E. 594, 50 Ohio App. 151, 18 Ohio Law. Abs. 513, 3 Ohio Op. 477, 1935 Ohio App. LEXIS 515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-extradition-of-blankmeyer-ohioctapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack