Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1875-10-27
THE TIGHE CASE.

The warrant Insufficient, bgI may
be Amended-Tghe still in Gus
tOdy.
The following is the very interesting
decision, in full, Of Judge Ray in the
Tighe case. The manner of the arrest
not being properly before the court was
not considered. The warrant is held to
be insufficient, but may be amended
within a reasonable time. The %relator,
therefore, is still in custody:
The relator has fled apetition alleging
that he was illegally restrained Of his
liberty by A. NJ. Smith and prayed that
a writ OF hsbeas corpus issue, that the
cause OF his detention may be inquired
into. The writ has been awarded. To
this writ A. NJ. Smith makes return that
he holds the relator by virtue Of a war
rant issued by His Excellency, James
D. Porter, Governor Of Tennessee, said
warrant being issued under a requisition
from the Governor OF Ohio, which war
rant ia made q part Of his return.
To this return the relstor demurs, and
for grounds of demurrer alleges that the
warrant is insufficient, Tor the reason
that it fails to show that q certified copy
of an affidavit, properly authenticated
by the Governor Of Ohio, charging a
crime TO have been, committed in said
State, and that he had fed therefrom,
ACCOMPANIED said demand,
The only question to be determined is
whether the provisions Of the act OF Con-
gress of 1898 has been complied with.
Section | is as follows, to,wit: That,
whenever the executive authority of any
State in the Union, or Of either Of the
Territories northwest or south Of the
river 0Sio, shall demand any person as
q fugitive FROM Justice Of the executive
authority Of any such State or territory
10 which such person shall have fed,
and shall, moreover, produce a copy OF
an indictment found or an affidavit made
before a magistrate Of any State or Ter
ritory, as aforesaid, charging the person
so demanded with having committed
treason, felony or other crime, certified
as authentic by the Governor or chief
magistrate OF the State or Territory from
whence the prisoner so charged fed, it
shall be the duty Of the executive au
thority Of the State or Territory to WHICH
such person shall have fed 10 cause him
or her to be arrested and secured, etc
Does this warrant meet the require
ments of the law; il not, wherein does it
failI The language Of the warrant is as
follows:
Whereas, il has been maae known to
me by the Governor Of the State OF Ohio
that = certain Joseph NJ. Tighe stands
charged. upon affidavit, with having Oh.
tanned property by false pretences, aud
hat the said Joseph NJ. Tighe has fed
from the State Of Ohio"
The warrant should recite every fact
necessary to show the Governors jnris.
dictiop and authority to issue il under
the act Of 1899
It fails to show that a copy Of the in,
dictment, "certi6ed as authentic" by .the
Governor Of Ohio, charging al ofenst
to have been committed 10 the said State.
accompanied the demand for his rendi
ton, which is expressly required by the
act Of Congress, and without which | Dc
not think a warrant can properly issue.
The recital in the warrant is simply
that the Governor Of Ohio has informed
the Governor of Tennessee that ]. NJ
Tighe stands charged upon afidavits
etc.
The authorities say that the object o.
this provision OK the law is 10 enable the
! Executive upon whom the demand /,
maee 70 determine whether there il
probable c.shss for believing q crime hal
beer committed.
The affidavit when ad6ntea as, the eyi
denee should be 80 implicit AID Certain
that any magistrate would be justiss-S
IN issuing bis warrant upon il aud hold
ing the party to answer the charge.
II is insisted that inasmuch as III,
warrant alleges that the relator was de
handed in due form Of law-that that il
conclusive, and that we cannot 20 be
hind It 10 determine whether the require
ments Of the law have been compiled
with or not. To this proposition / d,
DOT assent; besides. from the view I TAX,
Of ", the face Of the warrant itself show
q want Of compliance.
II may be true, and the inference is
mat me proper papers have been pre-
sented aud are now on Gle in the Star,
department; but with that | have moth
ing 10 do, aud carnot consider it 10 de
terminlLg the suticiency Of this war
rant. Presumptions and i~niereuces ar,
not sufficient to deprive a citizen Of bi,
liberty.
10 the matter Of HayEOrd, lat Sauf
Sup. c. X. 7Ol, the court said Mere