United States v. John Smith
| Decision Date | 03 April 1905 |
| Docket Number | No. 184,184 |
| Citation | 197 U.S. 386,49 L.Ed. 801,25 S.Ct. 489 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES, Appt. , v. JOHN SMITH |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
On May 26, 1899, John Smith was serving under enlistment as a fireman of the first class on board the United States naval vessel Yorktown, then at anchor in Iloilo harbor, Philippine Islands. On the date named Smith was reported to the commanding officer of the Yorktown as having refused to do duty, and consequently such officer ordered him 'put under sentries as a prisoner in single irons for safekeeping to await trial by a general court-martial.' Subsequently, on June 30, 1899, Rear Admiral Watson, the commander-in-chief of the United States naval force on the Asiatic station, convened a general court-martial, to meet on July, 3, 1899, for the purpose of trying accused persons who might be legally brought before the court, and on the same day a charge was preferred against Smith, by the rear admiral, accompanied with a specification, for refusing to obey a lawful order of his superior officer. Smith, who, as already stated, had been placed under arrest on May 26, 1899, was served on July 1, 1899, with a copy of the charge and specification which had been preferred against him, and an extra watch was put over him as well as over other prisoners who were being held for trial. On July 5, 1899, Smith was sent under guard before the court-martial. He was tried, found guilty, and sentenced 'to be confined in such place as the Secretary of the Navy may direct for a period of one year, to perform extra police duties during such confinement, to lose all pay that may become due him during such confinement, except the sum of three dollars ($3) per month for necessary prison expenses, and a further sum of $20 to be paid him at the expiration of his term of confinement, when he shall be dishonorably discharged from the United States Navy.'
The term of imprisonment prescribed in the sentence was somewhat mitigated by the Secretary of the Navy. Thereafter, on being released, Smith sued in the court of claims to recover the pay which would have been earned by him had he been entitled to receive the same during the period covered by the sentence. The right to recover was based on the averment that a copy of the charge had not been served on Smith when he was originally put under arrest on May 26, 1899, it being claimed that for this reason the judgment of the court-martial was void. After finding the facts as above recited, the court of claims concluded, as matter of law, that the claimant was entitled to recover, and from the judgment entered upon such finding the government appealed.
Messrs. Edwin P. Hanna, Assistant Attorney General Pradt, and Felix Brannigan for appellant.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 387-389 intentionally omitted] Messrs. John Spalding Flannery and Frederio D. McKenney for appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 389-391 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice White, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court:
Article 43 of § 1624 of the Revised Statutes (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 1117), upon which the court of claims based its legal conclusion that the action of the court-martial in question was void because the charge and specification were not served upon the claimant at the time of the original arrest, reads as follows: 'The person accused shall be furnished with a true copy of the charges, with the specifications, at the time he is put under arrest.'
It is conceded by the findings that at once, when the charge and specification were formulated by Rear Admiral Watson and the court-martial was ordered to be convened, a copy of the charge and specification was served upon Smith. It is also established by the findings that no objection as to tardiness of service was made at the time of trial. Conceding, arguendo solely, and without so deciding, that under these circumstances the objection as to the lateness of the service was jurisdictional, and could be collaterally inquired into, we think the contention is wholly devoid of merit. Nearly ten years before the trial in question was had, in the year 189...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reiherzer v. Shannon
... ... REIHERZER, Plaintiff-Appellee, ... Daniel J. SHANNON, and Central States, Southeast and ... Southwest Areas Pension Fund, Defendants-Appellants ... No. 77-1911 ... United States Court of Appeals, ... Seventh Circuit ... Argued March 3, 1978 ... Contra, Rehmar v. Smith, 555 F.2d 1362 (9th Cir. 1977); Phillips v. Kennedy, 542 F.2d 52 (8th Cir ... ...
-
Juhl v. United States
...had not been served with a copy of the charges and specifications upon his first arrest. The Supreme Court reversed at 197 U.S. 386, 25 S.Ct. 489, 49 L.Ed. 801 (1905), but upon the ground that we misconstrued the statute. It expressly passed over the jurisdiction issue. It would seem the ca......
-
Sima v. United States
...Op. Atty. Gen. 472, 475 (1890). See also Johnson v. Sayre, 158 U.S. 109, 117, 15 S.Ct. 773, 39 L.Ed. 914; United States v. Smith, 197 U.S. 386, 391-392, 25 S.Ct. 489, 49 L. Ed. 801; Bishop v. United States, 197 U.S. 334, 339, 25 S.Ct. 440, 49 L.Ed. In a case involving somewhat similar facts......
-
United States v. Jones
...proper authority against the accused military member with a view to the convention of a court martial. See, United States v. Smith, 1905, 197 U.S. 386, 25 S.Ct. 489, 49 L. Ed. 801; Bishop v. United States, 1905, 197 U.S. 334, 25 S.Ct. 440, 49 L.Ed. 780; Johnson v. Sayre, 1895, 158 U.S. 109,......