United States v. Barry
Citation | 29 F.2d 817 |
Decision Date | 26 November 1928 |
Docket Number | No. 3856.,3856. |
Parties | UNITED STATES ex rel. CUNNINGHAM v. BARRY, Sergeant at Arms of United States Senate, et al. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit) |
J. Elwood Dukes, Otto Kraus, Jr., Benjamin M. Golder, and Ruby R. Vale, all of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
Howard Benton Lewis, of Philadelphia, Pa. (George W. Wickersham, of New York City, of counsel), for appellees.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
On May 16, 1926, the Senate of the United States, by Resolution 195, created a committee and provided:
The resolution further provided: "Every person who, having been summoned as witness by authority of said committee, * * * who having appeared refuses to answer any question pertinent to the investigation heretofore authorized, shall be held to the penalties provided by section 102 of the Revised Statutes of the United States." Such section provided: "Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either house of Congress, to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either house, or any committee of either house of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars nor less than one hundred dollars, and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months." 2 USCA § 192.
In response to a subpœna, Thomas W. Cunningham appeared before the committee, was sworn, and testified as follows:
At this point the attorney of Cunningham, who had previously been directed by the chairman that "it would be entirely proper for you to address yourself to the chair and state your objection, the same as you would to a court," made objection, which, as pertinent to the question here involved, was: "I have further advised Mr. Cunningham that he need not disclose to this committee from what part of his personal fortune he paid the money to Mr. Watson that he did pay during this last campaign in Pennsylvania." The examination then proceeded:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wyman v. Uphaus
...guests which is not shown to be at hand. See United States ex rel. Cunningham v. Mathues, 3 Cir., 33 F.2d 261; United States ex rel. Cunningham v. Barry, 3 Cir., 29 F.2d 817; Bowers v. United States, 92 U.S.App.D.C. 79, 202 F.2d 447, 452. See also, Watkins v. United States, 98 U.S.App.D.C. ......
-
People v. McDonald
...725 ILCS 5/109-3(d) (West 1998). See generally U.S. ex ret. Cunningham v. Barry, 25 F.2d 733 (E.D.Pa.1928), rev'd on other grounds, 29 F.2d 817 (3rd Cir.1928), rev'd on other grounds, 279 U.S. 597, 49 S.Ct. 452, 73 L.Ed. 867 (1929). A trial court should look at several factors in exercising......
-
U.S. v. Desena
... Page 150 ... 260 F.3d 150 (2nd Cir. 2001) ... UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE, ... MICHAEL DESENA, AKA RICHIE BIGFOOT, KEVIN KIERNAN, AKA SIDEWAYS, ... ...
-
United States v. Orman
...States, supra; see Sinclair v. United States, supra, 279 U.S. at pages 296-297, 49 S.Ct. at pages 272-273; United States ex rel. Cunningham v. Barry, 3 Cir., 1928, 29 F.2d 817, reversed on other grounds, 1929, 279 U.S. 597, 49 S.Ct. 452, 73 L.Ed. 867. An innocent, true answer does not destr......