The People Ex Rel. Draper v. . Pinkerton

77 N.Y. 245, 1879 N.Y. LEXIS 766
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedMay 20, 1879
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 77 N.Y. 245 (The People Ex Rel. Draper v. . Pinkerton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
The People Ex Rel. Draper v. . Pinkerton, 77 N.Y. 245, 1879 N.Y. LEXIS 766 (N.Y. 1879).

Opinion

Per Ouriam.

The only material question which seems to be presented in this case is whether a warrant of the governor of this State for the arrest of a fugitive from the justice of another State containing the recital of facts necessary to confer authority under the Constitution and laws of the United States, is a sufficient justification for holding the prisoner when brought up on habeas corpus, without producing the papers or evidence upon which the governor acted. We have no doubt but that the recitals are to be taken as prima facie, at least, true, and that the return setting forth the warrant containing such recitals, is sufficient. When the affidavit or indictment charging the offence, appears either by the return or otherwise, a very different question is presented. This court has held in the case of an affidavit, that it is competent for the court to examine it, and determine •whether a felony has been legally charged, and if not to discharge the prisoner. (People v. Brady, 56 N. Y., 182.)

The further question whether the warrant is conclusive, and whether it is competent for the prisoner to prove that the papers presented to the governor were defective, it is not needful in this case to determine. There was no offer of any such proof, and the question is not in the case.

We concur with the opinion of Gilbert, J., in the court below upon all the points, without intending to express an opinion upon the couclusiveness of the warrant, and we deem it unnecessary to elaborate the reasons therefor, or to review *248 the authorities on the subject. The question of indentity is not reviewable here, and aside from that question, we think that the case was properly disposed of in the court below. The order should be affirmed.

All concur, except Miller," J., absent at argument.

Order affirmed.

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

Related

People ex rel. Effner v. Telian
64 A.D.2d 736 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
People ex rel. Weiss v. Menna
25 A.D.2d 399 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1966)
People ex rel. Samet v. Kennedy
285 A.D. 1116 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1955)
Bicknell v. Farley
5 N.W.2d 831 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1942)
People ex rel. Steel v. Mulrooney
139 Misc. 525 (New York Supreme Court, 1931)
People ex rel. Kubiak v. Zimmerman
226 A.D. 589 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1929)
Taylor v. Wise
126 N.W. 1126 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1910)
People Ex Rel. Corkran v. . Hyatt
64 N.E. 825 (New York Court of Appeals, 1902)
State ex rel. Arnold v. Justus
55 L.R.A. 325 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1901)
In re Sylvester
57 P. 829 (Washington Supreme Court, 1899)
In re Ryan
36 N.Y.S. 888 (New York Supreme Court, 1895)
People ex rel. Whitman v. Shea
3 Ill. Cir. Ct. 99 (Illinois Circuit Court, 1894)
In re Scrofford
12 N.Y.S. 943 (New York Supreme Court, 1891)
Ex parte Stanley
8 S.W. 645 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1888)
In re Mitchell
4 N.Y. Crim. 596 (New York Executive Chamber, 1885)
People Ex Rel. Jourdan v. Donohue
84 N.Y. 438 (New York Court of Appeals, 1881)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
77 N.Y. 245, 1879 N.Y. LEXIS 766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-people-ex-rel-draper-v-pinkerton-ny-1879.