US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

In a habeas corpus proceeding in extradition, it is sufficient if the count in the indictment plainly shows that the defendant is charged with a crime. Pierce v. Creecy, 210 U. S. 387.

Where a guaranty goes not to newness but to fitness of articles furnished, it is a material fraud to furnish old articles even if they can meet the test of the guaranty, and the fact that the purchaser may rely on the guaranty does not exclude the possibility that the purchase price was obtained by false representations as to the newness of the articles.

A state may punish one committing crimes done outside its jurisdiction for the purpose of producing detrimental effects within it when it gets the criminal within its power.

Commission of the crimes alleged in this indictment -- bribery of a public officer and obtaining public money under false pretenses -- warrants punishment by the state aggrieved even if the offender did not come into the state until after the fraud was complete.

An overt act becomes retrospectively guilty when the contemplated result ensues.

One who is never within the state before the commission of a crime producing its results within its jurisdiction is not a fugitive from justice within the rendition provisions of the Constitution, Hyatt v. Corkran, chanrobles.com-red

Page 221 U. S. 281

188 U. S. 691, but, if he commit some overt and material act within the state and then absent himself, he becomes a fugitive from justice when the crime is complete, if not before.

Although absent from the state when the crime was completed in this case, the party charged became a fugitive from justice by reason of his having committed certain material steps toward the crime within the state, and the demanding state is entitled to his surrender under Art. IV, § 2 of the Constitution of the United States and the statutes providing for the surrender of fugitives from justice.

The facts are stated in the opinion.