Under § 5270, Rev.Stat., if the committing magistrate has
jurisdiction and the offense charged is within the treaty and there
is legal evidence
Page 226 U. S. 521
on which to exercise his judgment as to sufficiency of the facts
to establish criminality for purpose of extradition, the decision
of the magistrate cannot be reviewed on habeas corpus.
In this case, there was competent evidence that the crime of
burglary as defined by the law of the state where accused was
arrested had been committed, and extradition was properly granted
under the treaties with Great Britain of 1842 and 1889.
Possession of the article stolen may tend to show guilty
participation in the burglary, and so
held in this case as
to possession of an automobile.
Evidence should, if unexplained, be accorded its natural
probative force.
Habeas corpus does not operate as a writ of error, and mere
errors are not subject to review, and so
held as to an
objection that depositions used in an extradition case were not
properly certified.
The facts, which involve the legality of an order of commitment
for extradition, are stated in the opinion.
Page 226 U. S. 523
MR. JUSTICE HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.
John McNamara, the appellant, was arrested on the complaint of
the British Senior Vice-Consul at the port of New York, charging
him with committing the crime of burglary at New Westminster,
British Columbia, in breaking into a building occupied as a garage
and stealing therefrom an automobile and rugs. Examination was
demanded, and, after hearing the evidence submitted on both sides,
the United States Commissioner found probable cause and issued an
order of commitment for extradition. Writs of habeas corpus and
certiorari were then sued out upon the ground that the accused was
restrained of his liberty without due process of law. The district
court dismissed the writs, and this appeal is brought.
The question simply is whether there was any competent evidence
before the Commissioner entitling him to act under the statute. The
weight of the evidence was for his determination. The statute
provides that if, on the hearing, "he deems the evidence sufficient
to sustain the charge," he shall certify the same to the Secretary
of the state, and issue his warrant for the commitment of the
accused pending surrender according to the stipulations of the
treaty. Rev.Stat. § 5270. Under this provision, the rule is well
established that if the committing magistrate has jurisdiction of
the subject matter and of the accused, and the offense charged is
within the treaty and the magistrate has before him legal evidence
on which to exercise his judgment as to the sufficiency of the
facts to establish the criminality of the accused for the purposes
of extradition, his decision cannot be reviewed on habeas corpus.
In re Oteiza y Cortes, 136 U. S. 330,
136 U. S. 334;
Benson v. McMahon, 127 U. S. 457,
127 U. S. 463;
In re Stupp, 12 Blatchf. 501;
Page 226 U. S. 524
Ornelas v. Ruiz, 161 U. S. 502,
161 U. S. 508;
Bryant v. United States, 167 U. S. 104,
167 U. S. 105;
Terlinden v. Ames, 184 U. S. 270,
184 U. S. 278;
Griffin v. Shine, 187 U. S. 181,
187 U. S. 192;
Yordi v. Nolte, 215 U. S. 227,
215 U. S. 232;
Elias v. Ramirez, 215 U. S. 398,
215 U. S. 407;
Glucksman v. Henkel, 221 U. S. 508,
221 U. S.
512.
Without setting forth in detail the facts appearing from the
depositions and testimony before the Commissioner, it is sufficient
to say that there was competent evidence that the crime of burglary
as defined by the law of New York, where the appellant was arrested
(Treaty with Great Britain, 1842, Art. X, 8 Stat. 572, 576; Treaty
of 1889, Art. I, 26 Stat. 1508, 1509; Penal Law [N.Y.] §§ 400,
404), had been committed by a breaking into the building in
question with intent to steal the automobile there kept. It was
shown that this took place between four and six o'clock on the
morning of September 15, 1911. The car was taken out of the
building and rolled about forty feet down the street, where,
shortly before six o'clock on that morning, according to testimony,
the appellant was seen standing in front of the car, "trying to
crank it;" "he was trying," said the witness, "to start the machine
off." Three men, unidentified, were with him. On an examination of
the car soon after, it was found that the cover had been removed
from the spark coil and that several of the electric wires forming
part of the motive equipment had been disarranged in an effort,
apparently, to operate the car despite the absence of a switch
plug.
The district court held that this was evidence connecting the
appellant with the crime upon which, in the light of the
circumstances proved, the Commissioner was entitled to exercise his
judgment. We agree with this view.
Wilson v. United
States, 162 U. S. 613,
162 U. S.
619-620. It is objected that, while possession of
property recently stolen may be evidence of participation in the
larceny, the apparent possession of the automobile by the
appellant
Page 226 U. S. 525
affords no support for a conclusion that he committed the
burglary, the crime with which he was charged. The permissible
inference is not thus to be limited. The evidence pointed to the
appellant as one having control of the car and engaged in the
endeavor to secure the fruits of the burglarious entry. Possession
in these circumstances tended to show guilty participation in the
burglary. This is but to accord to the evidence, if unexplained,
its natural probative force.
Considine v. United
States,112 F. 342, 349-350;
Commonwealth v. McGorty,
114 Mass. 299;
Knickerbocker v. The People, 43 N.Y. 177,
181;
Neubrandt v. State, 53 Wis. 89;
State v.
Fitzgerald, 72 Vt. 142.
It is assigned as error that the Commissioner received in
evidence certain depositions taken in British Columbia which were
certified by the Consul General of the United States as depositions
proposed to be used upon an application for the extradition of the
appellant upon another charge. We need not consider the sufficiency
of this certificate, as the writ of habeas corpus does not operate
as a writ of error, and mere errors are not the subject of review.
Benson v. McMahon, 127 U. S. 457,
127 U. S.
461-462;
Terlinden v. Ames, 184 U.
S. 270,
184 U. S. 278.
Irrespective of the depositions objected to, there was legal
evidence upon which to base the Commissioner's action.
Affirmed.