Hume v. United States
| Decision Date | 18 November 1902 |
| Docket Number | 1,109. |
| Citation | Hume v. United States, 118 F. 689 (5th Cir. 1902) |
| Parties | HUME v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
J. D Rouse and William Grant, for plaintiff in error.
William H. Atwell, U.S. Atty.
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Texas.
Omitting the caption and indorsements, the indictment is as follows:
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
34 cases
-
Hunter v. State
... ... to be established in this and other states as to the ... allegation and proof of the time of the commission of an ... offense. Alexander v ... Alexander v. State, 40 Fla. 213, 23 So. 536; Joyce ... on Indictments, § 311; Hume v. U. S., 118 F. 689, 55 ... C. C. A. 407; Ledbetter v. U. S., 170 U.S. 606, 612, ... 18 S.Ct ... ...
-
United States v. Ahmad
...printed matter was the substance of the offense. Durland v. United States, supra; Wilson v. United States, supra; Hume v. United States, 118 F. 689 (5th Cir. 1902); United States v. French, 57 F. 382 (C.C.S.D.Mass.1893). Otherwise, it was generally said or adopted "`in every kind of a crime......
-
Morris v. United States
... ... Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, ... 5 Sup.Ct. 935, 29 L.Ed. 89; Bannon et al. v. United ... States, 156 U.S. 464, 15 Sup.Ct. 467, 39 L.Ed. 494; ... Reagan v. United States, 157 U.S. 301, 15 Sup.Ct ... 610, 39 L.Ed. 709; Considine v. United States, 112 ... F. 342, 50 C.C.A. 272; Hume v. United States, 118 F ... 689, 698, 55 C.C.A. 407. Offenses proscribed under the ... oleomargarine act were unknown to the common law. They are ... solely the creatures of the act of Congress. As they are not ... designated as felonies by the statute, they are only ... statutory ... ...
-
United States v. Howard
... ... statement of the year in the case of Peters v. U.S., ... 94 F. 127, 133, 36 C.C.A. 105, in ... [132 F. 336] ... which a certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court ... Peters v. U.S., 176 U.S. 684, 20 Sup.Ct. 1026, 44 L.Ed ... 638. And it is stated by Judge Shelby in Hume v ... U.S., 118 F. 689, 696, 55 C.C.A. 407, 414, that, 'in ... the absence of a special reason rendering it important, this ... allegation is mere form, and the time proved need not be the ... same as that laid in the indictment'; the difficulty ... being cured by Rev. St. Sec. 1025. It was ... ...
Get Started for Free