Skip to main content

Commonwealth v. Hare

Citations

  • 36 Pa. Super. 125
  • 1908 Pa. Super. LEXIS 122

Syllabus

<p>Habeas corpus — Appeals—Evidence—Extradition.</p> <p>An appeal in habeas corpus proceedings is in effect a certiorari, in which the jurisdiction of the appellate court is restricted to an examination of the record. The evidence introduced and the rulings of the judge thereon are not properly for the upper court.</p> <p>Extradition — Warrant of arrest — Fugitive from justice — Duty of governor — Criminal law.</p> <p>The constitutional provision on the subject of interstate extradition and the act of congress relating thereto are part of the supreme law of the land and of every state. Requisitions and warrants of arrest for alleged fugitives are issued under the laws of the United States. The statute of this state on the subject is in aid, merely, of the proceedings and in no sense inconsistent with the federal statute. Whether the warrant of arrest shall be issued or not is an executive consideration and the duty of the governor is absolute whenever the requisition from the demanding state is presented in due form, with the necessary accompanying papers as required by law, to the governor of the state where the accused has taken refuge. The latter is under obligation to issue a warrant for the surrender of the person accused if he is a fugitive from justice. If the requisition is in proper form he has no authority to determine whether the charge is true. The constitutional provision for extradition is in the nature of a treaty between the states to which the executive of each is bound to give effect.</p> <p>Jurisdiction of the court on a writ of habeas corpus in an extradition proceeding does not involve any executive function. It is limited to (a) the identification of the person demanded; (b) an inquiry whether the record shows that a crime was substantially charged against him and (c) whether he is a fugitive from justice.</p> <p>Each state has the power unless forbidden by the constitution of the United States to. declare what shall be offenses against her law

Judges: Beaver, Head, Hendeeson, Henderson, Orlady, Porter, Rice

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.