United States v. Hewecker
| Decision Date | 26 October 1896 |
| Docket Number | No. 547,547 |
| Citation | 164 U.S. 46,41 L.Ed. 345,17 S.Ct. 18 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. HEWECKER |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Asst. Atty. Gen. Dickinson, for the United States.
Abram J. Rose, for defendant.
Hewecker was indicted for the murder of one Miller on January 17, 1892, in the Bay of Havana, off the Island of Cuba, on board an American vessel, within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, and out of the jurisdiction of any particular state, in the circuit court of the United States for the Southern District of New York; that district being the district in which he was found, and into which he was first brought. To the indictment he entered a special plea in the nature of a plea in abatement, to the effect that the indictment was not found until March 10, 1896; that Miller died January 21, 1892, in Cuba, without the United States, and that, under and by virtue of section 1043 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, he could not be prosecuted or tried, that from January 17, 1892, until the date of the finding of the indictment, he had not fled from justice, but had been confined in a prison at Havana, Cuba, upon a charge of assault inflicted in that city; and that, therefore, the offense with which he was charged by the indictment was barred by the statute of limitations. To this plea the United States interposed a demurrer, and argument was had thereon, whereupon the judges of the circuit court (the court being held by a circuit judge and a district judge) announced that they were divided in opinion upon certain questions of law arising on the demurrer; and the points upon which the judges disagreed were, at the request of the United States, certified to this court. The case was submitted on a motion to dismiss.
By the judiciary act of March 3, 1891, it was provided that this court should not have appellate jurisdiction by appeal, by writ of error, or otherwise, over the circuit courts, except according to the provisions of the act, and jurisdiction was specifically given in 'cases of conviction for a capital or otherwise infamous crime.'
In U. S. v. Rider, 163 U. S. 132, 16 Sup. Ct. 938, we decided that sections 651 and 697 of the Revised Statutes, in relation to certificates of division of opinion in criminal cases, were repealed for the reasons given therein. It is true that in that case the defendants had been found guilty, and that the certificate of division was on a motion for new trial. The general rule was that this court could not, upon a certificate of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Kirk
... ... Bretz (1978), 437 U.S. 28, 98 S.Ct. 2156, 57 L.Ed.2d 24, we are bound by Brasfield v. United States (1926), 272 U.S. 448, 450, 47 S.Ct. 135, 136, 41 L.Ed. 345, 346, which ruled: ... "We deem ... ...
-
Brouse v. United States
...of the statute of limitations during that interval. United States v. Hewecker (C. C.) 79 F. 59, 60, certificate dismissed 164 U. S. 46, 17 S. Ct. 18, 41 L. Ed. 345. See, too, United States v. Brown, 2 Lowell, 267, Fed. Cas. No. 14,665, in which the same principle was applied in the case of ......