Court : US Supreme Court
Roller v. Holly - 176 U.S. 398 (1900) U.S. Supreme Court Roller v. Holly, 176 U.S. 398 (1900) Roller v. Holly No. 104 Submitted January 18, 1900 Decided February 26, 1900 176 U.S. 398 ERROR TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS Syllabus A state statute authorizing service of process by publication or otherwise upon absent and nonresident defendants has no application to suits in personam, but is a sufficient authority for the institution of suits in rem where, under recognized principles of law, such suits may be instituted against nonresident defendants. Where a statute specifies certain classes of cases which may be brought against nonresidents, such specification operates as a restriction and Page 176 U. S. 399 limitation upon the power of the court; but where the power is a general one, it is, as respects suits in rem, subject to no limitation. Where service of process was made upon a defendant residing in Virginia, re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Maxwell v. Dow - 176 U.S. 581 (1900) U.S. Supreme Court Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581 (1900) Maxwell v. Dow Argued December 4, 1899 Decided February 26, 1900 176 U.S. 581 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH Syllabus The decision In Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516 , that the words "due process of law " in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States do not necessarily require an indictment by a grand jury in a prosecution by a State for murder, has been often affirmed, and is now reaffirmed and applied to this case. The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal Government. The trial of a person accused as a criminal by a jury of only eight persons instead of twelve, and his subsequent imprisonment after conviction, do not abridge his privileges and immunities under the Constitu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1900)ILR27Cal452
Prinsep and Stanley, JJ.1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 182 of the Penal Code and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 30 and his appeal has been dismissed.2. A rule has been granted to consider the objection now raised that as the District Magistrate gave sanction to the prosecution on the police report he was not competent to hear the appeal. Section 487 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which has been relied upon does not apply to this case, because the alleged offence was not committed before the District Magistrate, nor was it in contempt of his authority, nor was it brought to his notice as a Magistrate in the course of a judicial proceeding.3. The Sub-Inspector reported the information given by the petitioner by telegram to be false and to constitute an offence within the terms of Section 182 of the Penal Code. The District Magistrate on this sanctioned the prosecution of the petitioner, who admittedly gave that information. Under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1900)ILR27Cal457
Prinsep and Stanley, JJ.1. The petitioners have been convicted, Durga Jemadar under Sections 353, 225B, 143 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, and Hari Manjhi under Sections 143, 341 and 225B, of the Indian Penal Code, and their offences may be shortly described as rescuing four persons who had been arrested and otherwise obstructing the execution of the warrant of arrest.2. The only point for our consideration in this ease is whether the warrant was being rightly executed so as to make the arrest lawful and the obstruction thereto an offence. The warrant was addressed to the Court Sub-Inspector, and it was by an order in writing, signed by the Court Head-Constable, endorsed for execution by Churai Nath, and Guana Nath, and these two persons made the arrest which led to the occurrence constituting the offences of which the petitioners have been convicted.3. It was contended both before the Magistrate and before the Sessions Judge in appeal that the execution of the warrant by these pers...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1900)ILR27Cal566
Prinsep and Stanley, JJ.1. The five persons concerned in the matter before us were convicted by the Magistrate of various offences under the Penal Code, and sentenced to separate sentences of one month's rigorous imprisonment for each of such offences. On appeal to the Sessions Judge, all these persons have been acquitted of every offence except one. It is not clear from the terms of the Sessions Judge's judgment, whether he affirmed the conviction of this offence as under Section 325 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code, or under Section 114 of abetment of an offence under Section 325. But we are inclined to think that he convicted the persons now before us of the last-mentioned offence. The Sessions Judge, after dealing with the appeals in this manner, referred the matter to this Court in revision for enhancement of the sentences so remaining, that is of rigorous imprisonment for one month in reference to each of these persons, because he considered that these sentences were inade...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1900)ILR27Cal692
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. On the 23rd of April 1899, the Assistant Magistrate of Purneah proceeded to search the house of the prisoner, who appears to be a man of position and means, and took with him two Superintendents of Police, several Inspectors of Police and a number of constables and chowkidars, the whole constituting, in point of numbers, a small army of about sixty men. Their object was to search for arms in the house of the prisoner. They reached his house at daybreak; they surrounded the house, went in, and at once arrested the prisoner and had him photographed. Some of the witnesses say--photographed with a constable holding him by the hand or arm--and then proceeded to search the house. The Police had no search-warrant, nor is there anything to show upon what charge the prisoner was arrested. The search lasted practically throughout the day, with the result that the stocks of two guns, some loaded and unloaded gun and revolver cartridges, a ramrod, a box of perc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1901)ILR28Cal63
Prinsep, J.1. The Magistrate had before him a complaint of defamation as well as of dishonestly using a forged document under Section 471, Indian. Penal Code. The alleged forgery consisted in affixing a false signature to a letter on -which the charge of defamation proceeded. At the trial, the evidence was, no doubt, principally directed to the charge under Section 471, and it appears that, at the close of the trial, the Magistrate suddenly turned round and convicted the accused of defamation, having no charge before him of that offence. On appeal, the Sessions Judge very properly found fault with such a proceeding. He seems, however, to have followed the Magistrate into an error regarding the evidence necessary to prove the offence of defamation, for he points out that there is no evidence to show that the complainant has been injuriously affected by such alleged defamation. That, however, is not necessary to constitute an offence of defamation as defined in Section 499, Indian Penal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1901)ILR24Mad45
1. In this case the petitioner was directed 'not to 'interfere with the management' of a certain 'kovil.' In our judgment this is a direction to 'abstain from a certain act' within the meaning of these words as used in Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The order therefore, so far as this point is concerned, was not made without; jurisdiction. The case is distinguishable on the facts from the case of Ananda Chandra Bhuttacharjee v. Carr Stephen I.L.R. 19 Calc. 127.2. The order directed the petitioner to abstain from taking any part in the management until the counter-petitioner was duly evicted from the management by due course of law. This contravenes the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 144, and to this extent the order was made without jurisdiction. We accordingly set aside so much of the order as directs that the order shall remain in force until the counter-petitioner is evicted from management....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Ex parte Baez - 177 U.S. 378 (1900) U.S. Supreme Court Ex parte Baez, 177 U.S. 378 (1900) Ex parte Baez No. ___ Submitted March 26, 1900 Decided April 12, 1900 177 U.S. 378 ORIGINAL Syllabus It is well settled that this Court will not proceed to adjudication where there is no subject matter upon which the judgment of the court can operate, and although the application in this case has not reached that stage, still as it is obvious that, before a return to the writ can be made, or any other action can be taken, the restraint of which the petitioner complains would have terminated, the court feels constrained to decline to grant leave to file the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and certiorari; but, in arriving at this conclusion, it is not to be understood as intimating in any degree an opinion on the question of jurisdiction or the other questions pressed on its attention. On March 26 a motion was made for leave to file the following petition for the writ of habeas corp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Carter v. Texas - 177 U.S. 442 (1900) U.S. Supreme Court Carter v. Texas, 177 U.S. 442 (1900) Carter v. Texas No. 193 Submitted March 16, 1900 Decided April 16, 1900 177 U.S. 442 ERROR TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS Syllabus Whenever, by any action of a state, whether through its legislature, through its courts, or through its executive or administrative officers, all persons of the African race are excluded solely because of their race or color from serving as grand jurors in the criminal prosecution of a person of the African race, the equal protection of the laws is denied to him, contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. And when a defendant has had no opportunity to challenge the grand jury which found the indictment against him, the objection to the Page 177 U. S. 443 constitution of the grand jury upon this ground may be taken either by plea in abatement or by motion to quash the indictment before pleadin...
Tag this Judgment!