|
|
Hogan v. O’neill, 255 U.S. 52 (1921)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Hogan v. O’neill, 255 U.S. 52 (1921)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 255 U.S. 50, click here.
Hogan v. O’Neill No. 120 Submitted November 8, 1920 Decided January 31, 1921 255 U.S. 52
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Syllabus
1. For the purposes of interstate rendition (Rev.Stats. § 5278), an indictment which omits otherwise to allege the place of the offense lays it sufficiently in the demanding state if its caption designates a court and county and a law of that state (Mass.Ref.Laws, c. 218, § 20) makes such designation equivalent to an allegation that the act was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of such court. P. 54.
2. Laws of a demanding state affecting the right to rendition are noticed by federal courts, and may be noticed by the governor of the state upon whom demand is made. P. 55.
3. In Massachusetts, as at common law, a conspiracy to commit a crime is itself a criminal offense, although no overt act be done in pursuance of it. Id.
4. A person duly charged in the demanding state who was present there when the offense is alleged to have been committed and afterwards departed, although not for the purpose of escaping prosecution, to another state, is a fugitive from justice under Rev.State. § 5278; Constitution, Art. IV, § 2. Id.
5. Whether the person demanded is in fact a fugitive is for determination by the governor of the state upon which demand is made, whose conclusion, evinced by the warrant of arrest, must stand in habeas corpus unless clearly overthrown. P. 56.
Affirmed.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Hogan v. O’neill, 255 U.S. 52 (1921) in 255 U.S. 52 255 U.S. 53. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=HCA2TK71A4FW6WZ.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Hogan v. O’neill, 255 U.S. 52 (1921), in 255 U.S. 52, page 255 U.S. 53. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=HCA2TK71A4FW6WZ.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Hogan v. O’neill, 255 U.S. 52 (1921). cited in 1921, 255 U.S. 52, pp.255 U.S. 53. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=HCA2TK71A4FW6WZ.
|