In Re Brown

California Court of Appeal Nov 19, 1929 No. Docket No. 1102.Published

Before: Finch

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. In an extradition proceeding, a court will not use habeas corpus to determine the sufficiency of an indictment if it purports to state an offense of a kind over which the demanding state has jurisdiction. The court held that the indictment sufficiently charged a public offense under Washington law for the purposes of extradition.

Issues

Whether an indictment's sufficiency can be challenged via habeas corpus in extradition proceedings.
Whether the petitioner's alleged acts constitute a public offense under the Washington Bank Act.

Disposition. remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The writ is discharged and the petitioner is remanded to the custody of respondent”

FINCH, P. J.

The petitioner has applied for a writ of

habeas corpus

on the ground that he is illegally restrained of his liberty under an executive warrant issued Ly the Governor of this state, after a hearing, upon the demand of

[98]

the Governor of the state of Washington for the extradition of the petitioner, who was indicted by the grand jury of the county of Grays Harbor, Washington, on five counts, in each of which it is charged in substance:

That the petitioner did “wilfully, knowingly, maliciously, fraudulently, feloniously and unlawfully make, subscribe, exhibit to and file with Hayes & Hayes, Inc., bankers, a banking corporation duly organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the state of Washington as a state bank,” a false financial statement of assets and liabilities, “with the intent to deceive the examiner or examiners or other person or persons who were authorized by law to examine into the affairs of said banking corporation.”

The alleged false financial statement referred to in the first count purported to set forth the assets and liabilities of the petitioner and those in the other counts the assets and liabilities respectively of four different corporations. Section 56 of the Washington Bank Act reads as follows:

“Every person who shall knowingly subscribe to or make or cause to be made any false statement or false entry in the books of any bank or trust company or shall knowingly subscribe to or exhibit any false or fictitious paper or security, instrument or paper, with the intent to deceive any person authorized to examine into the affairs of any bank or trust company or shall make, state or publish any false statement of the amount of the assets or liabilities of any bank or trust company shall be guilty of a felony.” (Laws 1917, p. 299.)

Petitioner contends that the indictment fails to state a public offense, that the section quoted applies only to “the officers, agents, employees and banking personnel of banks,” and that the indictment does not allege that the petitioner is an officer, agent or employee.

In Re Brown

AI Brief

FINCH, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief