Hogan v. Neill
| Citation | 65 L.Ed. 497,41 S.Ct. 222,255 U.S. 52 |
| Decision Date | 31 January 1921 |
| Docket Number | No. 120,120 |
| Parties | HOGAN v. O'NEILL, Chief of Police |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Reuben D. Silliman, of New York City, for appellant.
Mr. Joseph C. Pelletier, of Boston, Mass., for appellee.
This is an appeal from a final order of the District Court discharging a writ of habeas corpus and remanding appellant to the custody of appellee for rendition to a representative of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, pursuant to a warrant issued by the Governor of New Jersey under section 5278, Rev. Stat. U. S. (Comp. St. § 10126).
Upon the hearing before the District Court on return of the habeas corpus, it appeared that a demand for appellant's apprehension and extradition to Massachusetts had been made by the Governor of that commonwealth upon the Governor of New Jersey, accompanied with a copy of an indictment found by the grand jury of Suffolk county, certified as authentic by the Governor of Massachusetts, and an affidavit to the effect that appellant was in the commonwealth for some time previous to and at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, and afterwards fled therefrom.
The following is a copy of the indictment (signatures omitted):
'Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Suffolk, ss:
'At the Superior Court Begun and Holden at the City of Boston, Within and for the County of Suffolk, for the Transaction of Criminal Business, on the First Monday of February, in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Nine Hundred and Nineteen.
'The jurors for the commonwealth of Massachusetts on their oath present that Charles K. Hogan and Luther R. Hanson, on the eighteenth day of August in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, conspired together to steal the property, moneys, goods and chattels of the Market Trust Company, a banking corporation legally established and existing.'
It appeared that since the month of May, 1915, appellant had resided continuously at East Orange, N. J.; but he admitted that in the summer of 1916—he said he could not remember the date—he visited Boston and spent some time in the company of Hanson, the alleged co-conspirator.
It is objected that the indictment does not charge appellant with the commission of a crime in Massachusetts; but when it is read in the light of the laws of that commonwealth the difficulty disappears. Revised Laws of Massachusetts, c. 218, § 20, reads thus:
Of course the courts of the United States will take notice of the laws of the demanding state, as the Governor of New Jersey was at liberty to do. Roberts v. Reilly, 116 U. S. 80, 96, 6 Sup. Ct. 291, 29 L. Ed. 544.
Were there any doubt of the sufficiency of the indictment, as a pleading,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
California v. Superior Court (Smolin)
...Smolin did not commit while in Louisiana "an act which by the law of the State constitutes a crime." Hogan v. O'Neill, 255 U.S. 52, 56, 41 S.Ct. 222, 223, 65 L.Ed. 497 (1921). III The Court is scrupulously fair in its recital of the facts and frank in its acknowledgement that the criminal p......
-
In re Murphy
...188 U.S. 691, 710, 23 S.Ct. 456, 47 L.Ed. 657;Munsey v. Clough, 196 U.S. 364, 372, 25 S.Ct. 282, 49 L.Ed. 515;Hogan v. O'Neill, 255 U.S. 52, 56, 41 S.Ct. 222, 65 L.Ed. 497. Strict common law evidence was not necessary before the Governor or before the court reviewing his decision. Petition ......
-
A.T. Stearns Lumber Co. v. Howlett
...Haverhill Strand Theatre, Inc., v. Gillen, supra; Commonwealth v. Dyer, 243 Mass. 472, 483, 484, 138 N. E. 296;Hogan v. O'Neill, 255 U. S. 52, 55, 41 S. Ct. 222, 65 L. Ed. 497. In Commonwealth v. Dyer, 243 Mass. 472, 486, 138 N. E. 296, 303, it was said by this court that: ‘The earlier conc......
-
Williams v. Wayne County Sheriff
...29 L.Ed. 250 (1885).18 Roberts v. Reilly, supra.19 Id. at 96, 6 S.Ct. at 300, 29 L.Ed. at 549.20 Similarly, in Hogan v. O'Neill, 255 U.S. 52, 41 S.Ct. 222, 65 L.Ed. 497 (1921), the Court rejected plaintiff's claim that the indictment was invalid for failure to state the place of the crime. ......