Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1868-04-03
THE COURT rs.

TIE CAsR OF Nh. SrRoSe-Decisioa Of C.iy
Justice Carsfsr-My. SironS Is QtseAsr9sq.-T
morning, Chief Justice Cartier gave decision
on the question Of surrepdering Mr. Strong 70
the Virginia authorities, on requisition based
on an indictment charging him with obtaining
the signature to a note on false representation;
Mr.. Carrington for the State Of virginia and
Messrs. Riddle, Merrick, and ]. j. Johnson for
Mr.. Strong.
The Ch,ef Justice ordered the discharge of
the respondent. He said that the case was
before him as the chief magistrate of the Dis
trict Of Columbia, and the motion had been
made to discharge the respondent, inasmuch as
the eyide nee furnished by tn, executive author
lty OF irginia does not snow that the respon-
dent is fugitive from justice, in that manner
of proof of which he was bound 70 take notice.
The question presents various considerations,
but dspenses with all inquiry OF questions
passed upon by his colleague, II Judge Fishery
So far as the Tequisition is concerned, he holds
that 1t comes from duly authorized authority,
and proceeds from duly constituted State. 1t
Is claimed that the defendant is not a fugIti We
from justice, and In support of this claim he
presents two affidavts to the effect that he is a
private citizen Of the District, deporting him.
self IN the ordinary employments of a citizen,
and1s not refugee from justice, but, on the
contrary, he has repeatedly visited the State
OF Virginia since the crime alleged is said
to have been committed, and retired by the
usual routes of travel. He had been advised
that State executives had adopted the rule of
requiring enlghtment by evidence before com.
Plylng with requisition. The District At
torney Claims that the certificate of an inofict-
ment duly found or of complaint before q mag
lsiIat implies, if the defendant 10 in another
State, that he Is a fugitive from justice. II an
onender rs in one jurisdiction and an indict-
ment rs found in another, Is he fugitive from
the State where the Indictment is found! III
that was so the constitution would have been
said about "fugitives from justice" The Dis
trict Attorney contends that the certificate Of
the executive is conclusive on the question,
and this Is plausible. And yet he would say
NOT NOT Will 80
tive did not esteem it his duty to be adj
yised by proof before he would surrender
the party as fugitive from Justice. The de-
sign Of the constitution and the law carving
OUT It's provisions was to protect communities,
and IT reserved to the executives of the States
the privilege of being advised by unmistalable
proof that perties were fugitives from justice.
his duties were TO inquire whether q crime had
been committed under the laws Of the State
from whence the requisition comes, and wheth
er me respondent is fugitive. 1t was imna-
tellal 10 dis what the term fugitiv We means
the law is that it IS man W no flies in anticipa
ton OF process of justice, &C., and il must be
made to appear that the defendant is a fugitive
The Governor of Virginia and the Clerk
certifies that it appears that he is a fugi-
uNe from justice. The evidence to that
TACT may have been very satisfac Glory to them
but he did not believe that it was. Does that
constitute refugee, a simple certificate that II
appears. &c. II that is so, no citizen is safe.
II the Constitution clothed the Executive of
one STATE with power, upon mere Information,
r
render of a party, then all protection of the
domicll is gone, the citizen becomes in every
sense citizen Of the Re public without the
privilege of a judicial hearing by the Judgment
OF those that know him-hls peers 1t must
entail a violation of all the rights of home upon
us. The citizens Of one State never were COM
mitted to the mercy of the Executive of an
other State on such a tenure AS this only upon
charges under oath should they act. The Ex-
ecutiye called on to surrender a person to an
other State, should have proof by a party
knowing the fact that the person is a fugitive.
and that not having been done in this case the
defendant is dis charged.
The District Attorney said that il was pro
posed 10 apply for another requisition in order
10 nave full discussion of the questions in
yolved.
EQUITY COURT, Jalgs Olin.-McIntyre agt.
Rodier; order making rule absolute on Shafer
10 comply with terms of sale. Hallenbeck agt
Hallen beck; order of publication against alb
sent defendant. Bean agt. Hymen: order an
pointing Caroline V. Bean guardian ad ltem
Barbour agt Morgan ct al; order of reference
10 auditor 10 report on indebtedness and suf-
helency OF personal estate. Larner agt. Lar
ner: order sustaining demurrer with leave to
amend petition Eckels agt. Barrett ct al; or
der OF reference TO auditor 10 report a party of
sale
CIRCUIT Court, Judge Wylte.-Berry & Co.
tier; new trial refused, appeal prayed Owen
and Wilson agt. Brooke Mockall, Jr, new trial
refused. Cautier agt. Thicker; Judgment by
default final. Kilbourn & Latta agt King: new
trlal granted. In the case of Hedgeman agt
Smith: appeal from magistrate. Mr.. WIllough-
DIV, for Hedgeman, moved that the appeal be
because ii was not filed within ten
days after judgment. The Court overruled
the motion.
CRIMINAL COURT, Chief Justice CARTER
Yesterday, Charles Haws, convicted of an as
"a ult and resisting an officer, was sentenced to
pay fine Of S25.