|
|
Benson v. Henkel, 198 U.S. 1 (1905)
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.
Benson v. Henkel, 198 U.S. 1 (1905)
Benson v. Henkel No. 308 Argued February 20-21, 1905 Decided April 17, 1905 198 U.S. 1
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Syllabus
In proceedings before an extradition commissioner, if the indictment produced as evidence of probable cause in proceedings for removal is framed in the language of the statute, with ordinary averments of time and place, and sets out the substance of the offense in language sufficient to apprise the accused of the nature of the charge against him, it is sufficient to justify removal even though it may be open to motion to quash or in arrest of judgment in the court in which it was originally found.
Whether § 5451, Rev.Stat., punishing bribery of officers of the United States, applies to bribery for acts to be committed in the future, in case a certain contingency which may never occur does occur, is a matter for the trial court to determine, and not for the extradition Commissioner.
The District of Columbia is a District of the United States to which a person, under indictment for a crime or offense against the United States, may be removed for trial within the meaning, and under the provision, of § 1014, Rev.Stat.
Where an offense is begun by the mailing of a letter in one district and completed by the receipt of a letter in another district, the offender may be punished in the latter district even though he could also be punished in the other. In re Palliser, 136 U.S. 57.
This was an appeal from an order dismissing a writ of habeas corpus and remanding appellant to the custody of the marshal to await the action of the district judge.
On December 31, 1903, an indictment was found by the grand jury of the District of Columbia charging appellant with a violation of Rev.Stat. sec. 5451, in bribing an officer of the United States to do an act in violation of his official duty. Appellant was arrested in the Southern District of New York, upon a warrant issued by a United States commissioner, which warrant was issued upon the complaint of a special agent of the Interior Department, to which a copy of the indictment was annexed. Appellant demanded an examination before the commissioner, in the course of which witnesses were examined on behalf of the government and a certified copy of the indictment was admitted as evidence. No material testimony was offered on behalf of the defendant. The commissioner found there was probable cause, and remanded defendant to the custody of the marshal to await a warrant for his removal. Immediately thereafter, appellant applied for a writ of habeas corpus and certiorari. At the close of the hearing, he was remanded to the custody of the marshal. 130 F. 486.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Benson v. Henkel, 198 U.S. 1 (1905) in 198 U.S. 1 198 U.S. 2–198 U.S. 8. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=KKH172B3BJE87XZ.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Benson v. Henkel, 198 U.S. 1 (1905), in 198 U.S. 1, pp. 198 U.S. 2–198 U.S. 8. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=KKH172B3BJE87XZ.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Benson v. Henkel, 198 U.S. 1 (1905). cited in 1905, 198 U.S. 1, pp.198 U.S. 2–198 U.S. 8. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=KKH172B3BJE87XZ.
|