3.
* 18 19 a goodnu od Al-
Y
X
i o. Jo am „Acivil me
1.
wling and 60 KL
to Buita. and be fair
Tesjore ni İsix a vé gɔen gludæiciri
BLIN JH. VIS UN
10 mi.
ti Juske ing av
Lou wordt in uväunt cor Iti. vä
01%
si qui
Y
Do y
Iambet 10 mts N
J
I
-mojbe od 10
wu touta 208
to xof not new #J
Koiduo,do dnom je dan i
•
t
f
10 10 Nevo) 90J TV NA
1, a f
I
JA 8.0
+
SJnJG BV BOILI
ae
10
woud neo ve 10026
10 JIB IN 10
egijaid sug700
IN ZG 11/91
น
1 A.
GA
Moto#
M
e verice dana, piena!!
......
Jw.coli URGON A DOGAJ
.V. of, wool 1.. TALA3, M.
2.1..
250
not been referred to nor are we aware of any judicial decision covering this precise question. If the proceedings in the New York court, after the appearance there of the accused under the first requisition by the Governor of that State, had so far progressed, before the dismissal of the first indictment, as to put him in legal jeopardy of his liberty, it might be but upon that point we forbear any expression of opinion that the Governor of Rhode Island could rightfully have de- -clined to honour a requisition to meet a second indictment for the same offence. But no such case is presented. The accused had not been put in jeopardy when the first indict- -ment was dismissed. It may have been that the dismissal was
because the State was without sufficient evidence at the time
to hold the defendant: or there may have been other and adequa
-te reasons for the course taken by the State's attorney. His
mere arraignment and pleading to the indictment did not put
him in judicial jeopardy. 1 Wharton's American Cr. Law (6th.
ed.), 1868, secs. 544, 590, and authorities cited under each
section. Suffice it to say, that when the second warrant of
arrest was issued by the Governor of Rhode Island the accused
had not been tried, nor put on final trial, in New York, nor placed in jeopardy there for the offence with which he was charged in that State. We do not, therefore, perceive any reason, based on the Constitution and Laws of the United
States, why the Governor of Rhode Island could not honor, as he did, the second requisition of the Governor of New York
and issue thereon a second warrant of arrest. It is certain that no right secured to the alleged fugitive by the Constitu- -tion or laws of the United States was thereby violated."
Bassing vs Cady,
U. S. Supreme Court,
208 U. S. P. 386.
Petitioner was arrested August 31, 1885, on warrant of an United States Circuit Court Comissioner, in extradition proceedings under
treaty with Great Britain. Examination was had before the Commissioner,
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.