|
|
Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135 (1920)
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.
Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135 (1920)
Horning v. District of Columbia No. 77 Argued November 8, 13, 1920 Decided November 22, 1920 254 U.S. 135
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Syllabus
One whose intentional conduct violate the prohibitions of a penal statute is not excused by his purpose to keep within the law and his belief that he did so. P. 137.
The offense of engaging without license in the business of lending money on security at more than 6 percent interest, in the District of Columbia (Act of February 4, 1913, c. 26, 37 Stat. 657), is committed by a pawnbroker who receives application, examines pledges, and decides upon loans only at a place just beyond the District line, but who maintains an establishment in the District where the pledges are kept and returned, and where intending borrowers may find a free automobile service to take them to him in person, or a paid messenger service, not belonging to the pawnbroker, by which their applications and pledge may be taken to him and the money and pawn ticket brought back and delivered to them. Id.
In a criminal case, when undisputed facts, including the testimony of the defendant, clearly establish the offense charged, the judge may say so to the jury, tell them that there is no issue of fact for their determination, and instruct them that, while they cannot be constrained to return a verdict of guilty, it is their duty to do so under their obligation as jurors. Id.
Held that, if the defendant suffered any wrong from the manner in which such instructions were given in the present case, it was purely formal, since there could be no doubt of his guilt on the facts admitted, and the error, if any, was cured by § 269, Jud.Code, as amended February 26, 1919. P. 138.
48 App.D.C. 380 affirmed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135 (1920) in 254 U.S. 135 254 U.S. 136. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=R1QMD8XY2K77NC8.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135 (1920), in 254 U.S. 135, page 254 U.S. 136. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=R1QMD8XY2K77NC8.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135 (1920). cited in 1920, 254 U.S. 135, pp.254 U.S. 136. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=R1QMD8XY2K77NC8.
|