|
|
Rumely v. McCarthy, 250 U.S. 283 (1919)
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.
Rumely v. McCarthy, 250 U.S. 283 (1919)
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 250 U.S. 273, click here.
Rumely v. McCarthy No. 874 Submitted April 16, 1919 Decided June 2, 1919 250 U.S. 283
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Syllabus
Under an indictment charging violations of the Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, c. 106, 40 Stat. 411, in failing to report enemy property and credits, the contention, raised before a commissioner in removal proceedings and based on the allegations and defendant’s uncontradicted evidence, that the report, if required, would show defendant guilty under the same act of trading with the enemy, and thus compel him to be a witness against himself, contrary to the Fifth Amendment, is matter for defense at the trial, and does not go to the issue of probable cause. P. 287.
A finding of fact made by a commissioner in removal proceedings and supported by competent evidence is not reviewable in habeas corpus. P. 289.
The duty, imposed by the Trading with the Enemy Act, § 7a, to make report of enemy property and credits to the Alien Property Custodian involves the duty to make it at his office, and a willful failure so to make it is an offense committed in the district where the office is established. Id.
Where defendant was indicted in the Southern District of New York for a conspiracy to omit making such a report and for perjury in verifying a false one, held that it was discretionary with the court of that district, without requiring a statement of reasons from the government, to order his removal under a later indictment charging failure to make the report in the District of Columbia, and that the discretion was not renewable by this Court in habeas corpus. P. 289.
256 F. 565 affirmed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Rumely v. McCarthy, 250 U.S. 283 (1919) in 250 U.S. 283 250 U.S. 284. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=IV8UJ4B3RT9M7EG.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Rumely v. McCarthy, 250 U.S. 283 (1919), in 250 U.S. 283, page 250 U.S. 284. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=IV8UJ4B3RT9M7EG.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Rumely v. McCarthy, 250 U.S. 283 (1919). cited in 1919, 250 U.S. 283, pp.250 U.S. 284. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=IV8UJ4B3RT9M7EG.
|