Case Name: Ex parte JAMES, and GEORGE WATSON
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1852-01
Citations: 2 Cal. 59
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ex parte JAMES, and GEORGE WATSON.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 59–60

Head Matter:
Ex parte JAMES, and GEORGE WATSON.
Habeas corpus.
The petitioners complained that they had been arrested on a warrant from the Recorder of San Francisco, as fugitives from justice, charged with embezzlement committed in New York; that they had demanded an investigation into the truth of the charge, which had been refused; and they were unlawfully imprisoned by the Marshal of San Francisco, who was about to deliver them to an agent of the New York Police, to be carried out of the State; that them detention was illegal for the cause aforesaid, and because the Recorder had no jurisdiction to issue the warrant, &c. A writ of habeas corpus, directed to the Marshal, was granted by the Chief Justice on the 9th, returnable the 11th instant, before this Court. The Marshal brought the '• prisoners into Court, and made a return, stating that he had had the prisoners in custody by virtue of a warrant from the Recorder, and had, on the 10th instant, surrendered them to Brown and Niven, (who joined in the return,) pursuant to an order of the Recorder, and upon an order of the Governor of California, under the Great Seal. Copies of the warrant and order of the Recorder, and order of the Governor were annexed to the return. The Recorder’s warrant was dated the 6th instant, and after reciting that information on oath had been given by Niven, charging that the petitioners had fled from justice, and that an indictment for grand larceny had been found against them in New York, commanded their arrest, &c. The Governor’s warrant, (under the great seal, and tested by the Secretary of State,) was dated the 7th inst., and directed to the Sheriff of San Francisco, or other officer having the petitioners in custody; and after reciting that it had been represented to the Governor that the petitioners were in “ your” custody, charged with embezzlement and grand larceny, committed in the city of New York, and that the Governor of New York, pursuant to the constitution and laws of New York in that behalf, had required that the petitioners be apprehended and delivered to Niven and Brown, who were authorized to receive and convey them to New York, to be dealt with according to law, then commanding said sheriff or other officer to deliver the petitioners, so in his custody, to said Niven and Brown, to be by them conveyed to the State of New York, there to be dealt with according to law.
Ii. N. Morrison and J. A. McDougdl for the petitioners.
A. Wells, Attorney General, contra.

Opinion:
By the Court.
Ordered, That the petioners be remanded to the custody of Brown and Niven.