United States v. Hiatt, 144.
Decision Date | 22 July 1943 |
Docket Number | No. 144.,144. |
Citation | 50 F. Supp. 756 |
Parties | UNITED STATES ex rel. INNES v. HIATT, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pa., et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
No appearances entered by either party.
This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.The petitioner, Peter J. Innes, Jr., is a general prisoner of the United States Army, now confined, by direction of the Secretary of War, in the custody of William H. Hiatt, Warden of the United States Penitentiary, Lewisburg, within the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
The petitioner alleges that he is illegally and improperly confined and restrained of his liberty and states that his conviction and sentence were not in accordance with the Rules and Articles of War pertaining to Courts Martial.Petitioner also alleges the following facts: That a petition for a writ of habeas corpus was presented to the District Court for the Southern District of New York, in a proceeding entitled, on September 1, 1942.The writ was granted on September 29, 1942.After argument, the writ was dismissed by Judge Coxe without opinion; appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit where it was argued on December 17, 1942; an opinion affirming the District Court was delivered on January 4, 1943.131 F.2d 576.
That on January 28, 1943, by direction of the Secretary of War, Colonel Crystal transferred the custody of the petitioner to William H. Hiatt, Warden of the United States Penitentiary at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania.
That on March 31, 1943, there was docketed in the Supreme Court of the United States as Number 873-October Term 1942, a petition for certiorari, two points of the petition being as follows:
(Point II)."The Circuit Court misconstrued the claims and facts in the case in ruling that the adjournment of the court-martial during its secret session on June 22, 1942, is not a fatal error." and
(Point V)."The military authorities by withholding information affirming the truth of facts presented by your petitioner, caused the presentation of statements by the U. S. Attorney which did deceive the Honorable District Court."
That on May 17, 1943, the petition was denied "on the ground that the cause is moot, it appearing that the petitioner no longer is in respondent's custody."On May 21, 1943, there was filed before the same Court a "motion for substitution of respondents and a petition for rehearing"; these were both denied by the Court on May 24, 1943.On June 1, 1943, a "motion for leave to file a petition for habeas corpus" was entered before the same court.On June 7, 1943 the following order was entered in the matter:
...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Ex parte Sabongy
...648, 60 S.Ct. 1098, 84 L.Ed. 1414; United States ex rel. Innes v. Hiatt, Warden, etc., 141 F.2d 664 (C.C.A. 3, 1944), affirming 50 F.Supp. 756 (D.C.M.D.Pa.1943); State ex rel. Eyer v. Warden, etc., 190 Md. 767, 59 A.2d 745 (C.C.A.Md.1948). And there is little doubt of the power of the court......
-
United States v. Hiatt, 8455
...court dismissing his petitions for writs of habeas corpus. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinions of the district court, 50 F. Supp. 756, 52 F.Supp. 425, and need not be repeated here. The district court declined to issue the writs and dismissed the petitions because it concluded......
-
State v. Fontano
...pragmatical, supporting that avenue of judicial practice, such as those delivered in Salinger v. Loisel, supra; United States ex rel. Innes v. Hiatt, 50 F.Supp. 756 (D.C.1943), affirmed, 141 F.2d 664 (C.C.A. 3, 1944); Dorsey v. Gill, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 9, 148 F.2d 857 (U.S.C.A.D.C.1945), certi......
-
Innes v. Hiatt, Civil Action No. 1445.
...denied 319 U.S. 755, 63 S. Ct. 1164, 87 L.Ed. 1708, rehearing denied 319 U.S. 783, 63 S.Ct. 1173, 87 L.Ed. 1727; United States ex rel. Innes v. Hiatt, D.C., 50 F.Supp. 756 and United States ex rel. Innes v. Stimson, D.C., 52 F.Supp. 425, affirmed 3 Cir., 141 F.2d As to the request of the pe......