Case Name: PEOPLE ex rel. ROBINSON v. FLYNN, Warden
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-04
Citations: 105 N.Y.S. 368
Docket Number: 
Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. ROBINSON v. FLYNN, Warden.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 105
Pages: 368–369

Head Matter:
(54 Misc. Rep. 7)
PEOPLE ex rel. ROBINSON v. FLYNN, Warden.
(Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County.
April, 1907.)
Extradition—Commitment.
The issuance of a commitment under Code Cr. Proc. § 830, to authorize the arrest of one as alleged fugitive under the warrant of the Governor is sufficiently justified, if it appears from the papers to the satisfaction of the magistrate that he is charged in some other state with crime and has fled from justice, and the proof need not show that his return to the demanding state is justified.
• - [Ed.- Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 23, Extradition, § 39.]
Application by the people, on the relation of one Robinson, for writ of habeas corpus against one Flynn, warden.
Writ dismissed.
Carl Fischer-Hansen, for relator.
William Travers Jerome, Dist. Atty., for respondent.

Opinion:
GREENBAUM, J.
The return to the writ of habeas corpus shows that the'relator is detained under a commitment issued by one of the city magistrates, pursuant to section 830 of the Code of Criminal (Procedure.. The purpose of the commitment-is to enable an arrest of the relator as an alleged fugitive to be made under the warrant of the Governor of this state. The issuance of the commitment is from the examination before the magistrate sufficiently justified, if "it appears to the satisfaction of the magistrate that the person under arrest is charged in such other state or territory with treason, felony or other crime, and has fled from justice." From the records produced under a subpoena duces tecum it appears that certain affidavits and papers were presented to the magistrate and an examination of the relator had before him relative to the charge of grand larceny pending against the relator in the state of Pennsylvania, and that he is a fugitive from said state. The proof before the magistrate need not be of the quality and character that may be necessary to justify the executive authority of the state to return a fugitive to a demanding state. The magistrate had jurisdiction of the relator, and the facts before him were sufficient to uphold the commitment.
Writ dismissed. •