Charles Neely v. William Henkel
Decision Date | 14 January 1901 |
Docket Number | No. 387,387 |
Citation | 45 L.Ed. 448,180 U.S. 109,21 S.Ct. 302 |
Parties | CHARLES F. W. NEELY, Appt. , v. WILLIAM HENKEL, United States Marshal for the Southern District of New York |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. John D. Lindsay and De Lancey Nicoll for appellant.
Assistant Attorney General Beck for appellee.
By § 5270 of the Revised Statutes of the United States it is provided:
This section was amended by Congress June 6th, 1900, by adding thereto the following proviso:
31 Stat. at L. 656, chap. 793.
On the 28th day of June, 1900, a warrant was issued by Judge Lacombe of the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York commanding the arrest of Charles F. W. Neely, who, 'being then and there a public employee, to wit, finance agent of the department of posts in the city of Havana, island of Cuba, on the 6th day of May in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred, or about that time, having then and there charge of the collection and deposit of moneys of the department of posts of the said city of Havana, did unlawfully and feloniously take and embezzle from the public funds of the said island of Cuba the sum of $10,000 and more, being then and there moneys and funds which had come into his charge and under his control in his capacity as such public employee and finance agent, as aforesaid, and by reason of his said office and employment, thereby violating chapter 10, article 401, of the Penal Code of the said island of Cuba,—that is to say, a crime within the meaning of the said act of Congress approved June 6th, 1900, as aforesaid, relating to the 'embezzlement or criminal malversation of the public funds committed by public officers, employees, or depositaries." The warrant directed the accused to be brought before the judge in order that the evidence of probable cause as to his guilt could be heard and considered, and, if deemed sufficient, that the same might be certified, with a copy of all the proceedings, to the Secretary of State, that an order might issue for his return and surrender pursuant to the authority of the above act of Congress.
The warrant of arrest was based on a verified written complaint of an assistant United States attorney for the southern district of New York.
On the same day and upon a like complaint a warrant was issued against Neely by the same judge, commanding his arrest for the crime of having unlawfully and fraudulently, while employed in and connected with the business and operations of a branch of the service of the department of posts in Havana, Cuba, between July 1st, 1899, and May 1st, 1900, embezzled and converted to his own use postage stamps, moneys, funds, and property belonging to and in the custody of that department, which had come into his custody and under his authority as such employee, to the amount of $57,000, in violation of §§ 37 and 55 of the Postal Code of Cuba.
Neely having been arrested under these warrants, application was made by the United States for his extradition to Cuba. The accused moved to dismiss the complaints upon various grounds. That motion having been denied, the case was heard upon evidence. In disposing of the application for extradition, Judge Lacombe said: But it was further said:
Subsequently, August 9th, 1900, Neely presented in the court below his written application for a writ of habeas corpus, and prayed that he be discharged from restraint in the extradition proceedings. He claimed on various grounds that the act of June 6th, 1900, under which he was arrested, detained, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Matter of Extradition of Demjanjuk
...rights of a defendant in an American court. Due process rights cannot be extended extraterritorially. Neely v. Henkel, 180 U.S. 109, 21 S.Ct. 302, 45 L.Ed. 448 (1901); Kamrin v. United States, 725 F.2d 1225, 1228 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 85, 83 L.Ed.2d 32 (1984)......
-
Taylor v. McDermott
...the kind of claim that falls beyond the scope of the court's review under the rule of non-inquiry. See Neely v. Henkel, 180 U.S. 109, 123, 21 S.Ct. 302, 45 L.Ed. 448 (1901) ("When an American citizen commits a crime in a foreign country, he cannot complain if required to submit to such mode......
-
United States of America v Lui Kin-Hong
...added) (citing Glucks-man v. HenkelUNKUNK 221 U.S. 508, 512, 31 S.Ct. 704, 705, 55 L.Ed. 830 (1911); Neely v. Henkel (No. 1)UNKUNK, 180 U.S. 109, 123, 21 S.Ct. 302, 307, 45 L.Ed. 448 (1901)). In this particular instance, I agree with the district court that the US-UK bilateral treaties are ......
-
Samuel Downes v. George Bidwell
...to be relinquished to them when the conditions justify its accomplishment, this court uranimously held in Neely v. Henkel, 180 U. S. 109, ante, 302, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 302, that Cuba was not incorporated into the United States, and was a foreign country. It follows from this decision that it ......
-
Reviewing Extraditions to Torture.
...For a history of the Rule of Non-Inquiry, see Mironescu v. Costner, 480 F.3d 664, 669-70 (4th Cir. 2007). (43.) Neely v. Henkel, 180 U.S. 109, 123 (1901) (describing generally the limitations of the inquiry without using the "Rule of Non-Inquiry" language). Courts do recognize occasional tr......
-
Boumediene, Munaf, and the Supreme Court?s Misreading of the Insular Cases
...U.S. 297 (1909) (rejecting Takings Clause claim based on U.S. military’s destruction of property during the war in Cuba); Neely v. Henkel, 180 U.S. 109 (1901) (concerning the temporary U.S. military government in Cuba); In re Vidal, 179 U.S. 126 (1900) (concerning a criminal conviction in a......
-
The Final Countdown: Using Resentencing as Final Judgment in the Post-AEDPA Era.
...Bay who were denied a writ of habeas corpus were wrongfully deprived of the right. 553 U.S. at 739, 798. (58.) See Neely v. Henkel, 180 U.S. 109, 122 (1901) (explaining rights afforded by Constitution not extended to crimes outside of U.S. jurisdiction); see also Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 67......
-
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - CATCHING FLIGHTS AND COURT CASES.
...(finding Necessary and Proper Clause provides Congressional authority to end racial discrimination in restaurants); Neely v. Ilenkel, 180 U.S. 109, 121-22 (1901) (holding Necessary and Proper Clause authorizes Congress to enact legislation appropriate to give efficacy to treaties); United S......