Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

42 App. D.C. 235

Goodale v. Splain

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided May 4, 1914

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · decided 1914-05-04

Hearing on an appeal by the petitioners from an order of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia discharging a writ of habeas corpus and remanding them to the custody of the marshal. The Court in the opinion stated the facts as follows: This is an appeal from an order discharging a writ of habeas corpus and remanding the petitioners, Franklin C. Goodale and Pearl V. Goodale, to the custody of Maurice Splain the marshal of the District of Columbia.

Relies on Christopher Strassheim v. Milton Daily · Pierce v. Creecy · In the Matter of Morris Strauss

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1914-05-04

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently November 1974

2 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

201914192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Chief Justice Siiepakd

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court:

¶2The court did not err in discharging the writ and remanding the petitioners to the custody of the marshal for delivery to the agent of the State of Wisconsin.

¶3An affidavit in accordance with the criminal procedure of the State is a sufficient charge of an offense against the laws of the State to warrant extradition, Re Strauss, 197 U. S. 324, 331, 49 L. ed. 774, 778, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 535.

¶4The demand for extradition founded on said complaint, and the warrant issued thereon, is in compliance with the law. No objection has in fact been made to its formality. Without analyzing the complaint, it is sufficient to say that it substantially charges the crime; and that is enough. Pierce v. Creecy, 210 U. S. 387, 52 L. ed. 1113, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 714; Strassheim v. Daily, 221 U. S. 281, 282, 55 L. ed 735, 737, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 558.

¶5In habeas corpus proceedings seeking to discharge one who has been held for delivery to the agent of a State upon demand of the governor thereof, the court will not consider matters of defense to the charge, or whether the proceedings were instigated by malice or improper motives. Depoilly v. Palmer, 28 App. D. C. 324, 328, and cases there cited.

¶6The judgment is affirmed with costs. , Affirmed.

/42/appdc/235 · .json · Public domain