Com. of Pa. Ex Rel. Fraley v. Rotan, Dist. Atty.

Citations

• 82 Pa. Super. 172

Syllabus

<p>Criminal law — Habeas corpus act testificandum — Habeas corpus ad subjiciendum — Judges of the courts of quarter sessions and oyer and terminer sitting as committing magistrates — Function of grand jury. ^</p> <p>(1) The writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum does not remove the person whose presence is desired in court, from the custody of the person or institution to which he has been committed. The function of the writ is to bring the witness into court; when he is produced the writ is executed, but he still remains in charge of the warden or other custodian. On such proceeding, the right of custody is not in question; the writ is in the nature of a subpoena; it may be issued only in a pending suit or other lawful proceeding, and it cannot be issued or used to keep a witness when there is no trial pending.</p> <p>(2) The proper tribunal for inquiry and investigation based on rumor, or common report, or general charges, is the grand jury: Oom. v. Smith, 185 Pa. 553, followed.</p> <p>(3) Habeas corpus issued by this court was proper to inquire into the alleged unlawful detention of Fraley, in the circumstances stated in the opinion of the court, and application for the writ was properly made by the legal custodian from whom Fraley was unlawfully detained.</p>