Basset v. United States
| Decision Date | 01 December 1869 |
| Citation | 76 U.S. 38,19 L.Ed. 548,9 Wall. 38 |
| Parties | BASSET v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Circuit Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
The United States sued Basset and another on a recognizance of bail, to which they pleaded two pleas:- 1. That there was no record of any such recognizance in the court.
2. That there was no indictment, as recited in said recognizance, pending against their principal when the recognizance was entered into, because they say that he had pleaded guilty to the indictment, and judgment had passed against him, and he had been delivered to the jail of Erie County, and had entered upon the expiation of his sentence.
The United States took issue on both these pleas, and the case was submitted to the court without a jury.
1. In respect to the first plea, the production of the record of the case showed that the recognizance was taken, and remained among the rolls and records of the court; so that there seemed nothing in the plea.
2. As regarded the second, it appeared by the record that to the indictment which the prisoner was held to answer by the recognizance, he had at an earlier period of the same term pleaded guilty, and had been sentenced to imprisonment in the jail of Erie County for six months, and was sent to that prison. But a few days after, on motion of the district attorney, he was brought back on a writ of habeas corpus. When he was thus brought again into court, on motion of the district attorney, the former judgment was set aside, and the prisoner had leave to withdraw his plea of guilty formerly entered. It was after this was done that the recognizance on which this action was brought was given, conditioned for the appearance of the prisoner from day to day during the term; and on his failing to appear the second day his recognizance was declared to be forfeited. All of this took place during the same term of the court.
The court below decided that there was a record of the recognizance denied by the first plea, and that there was no such record of conviction and sentence as that set up in the second plea. On motion of defendants a new trial was granted, which was also by the court, and on this trial a statement of facts, agreed to and signed by counsel for both parties, was presented to the court, on which it rendered the same judgment that it had before. This statement of facts consisted of extracts from the records of the court, and it was upon the inspection of this record that the court decided the case.
The judgment was now brought here by Basset and the other obligors in the recognizance, and was submitted by them, without counsel, upon the record; and contra, upon a brief of Mr. Hoar, A. G., and Mr. Field, Assistant A. G.
Both the pleas of the defendants were pleas of nul tiel record, the first denying the existence of the recognizance, and the second...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Browder v. Director, Department of Corrections of Illinois
...v. Schulten, 104 U.S. 410, 415, 26 L.Ed. 797 (1882); Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163, 167, 21 L.Ed. 872 (1874); Basset v. United States, 9 Wall. 38, 41, 19 L.Ed. 548 (1870); and this rule was applied in habeas corpus cases, see Aderheld v. Murphy, 103 F.2d 492 1939); Tiberg v. Warren, 192 F. 4......
-
Grand Jury Investigation, In re
...in criminal cases as well, provided the punishment be not augmented. In re Lange, 18 Wall. 163, 167-174 (21 L.Ed. 872); Basset v. United States, 9 Wall. 38 (19 L.Ed. 548). In the present case the power of the court was exercised to mitigate the punishment, not to increase it, and is thus br......
-
Ira S. Bushey & Sons v. WE Hedger Transp. Corp.
...56 S.Ct. 706, 80 L.Ed. 1118; Henderson v. Carbondale Coal & Coke Co., 140 U.S. 25, 40, 11 S.Ct. 691, 35 L.Ed. 332; Basset v. United States, 9 Wall. 38, 41, 19 L.Ed. 548; Bronsen v. Schulten, 104 U.S. 410, 415, 26 L.Ed. 797; Doss v. Tyack, 14 How. 297, 312, 14 L.Ed. 428; South Utah Mines v. ......
-
Rowley v. Welch
...U. S. 347, 48 S.Ct. 146, 72 L.Ed. 309. 7 United States v. Benz, 1931, 282 U. S. 304, 51 S.Ct. 113, 75 L.Ed. 354; Bassett v. United States, U.S.1870, 9 Wall. 38, 19 L.Ed. 548; Nichols v. United States, 8 Cir., 1901, 106 F. 672; Wall v. Aderhold, D.C.N.D.Ga.1931, 51 F.2d 714; DeMaggio v. Coxe......