United States v. Kazinski
District Court, D. Massachusetts
This was an indictment (against Louis Kazinski and othersl for violation of the second section of what is commonly known as the neutrality act of ISIS (3 Stat. 447). The section reads as follows: “If any person shall, within the territory or jurisdiction of the United States, enlist or enter himself, or hire or retain another person to enlist or enter himself, or to go beyond the limits or ju-risdietion of the United States, with intent to be enlisted or entered in the…
Read the full summary
This was an indictment (against Louis Kazinski and othersl for violation of the second section of what is commonly known as the neutrality act of ISIS (3 Stat. 447). The section reads as follows: “If any person shall, within the territory or jurisdiction of the United States, enlist or enter himself, or hire or retain another person to enlist or enter himself, or to go beyond the limits or ju-risdietion of the United States, with intent to be enlisted or entered in the service of any foreign prince, state, colony, district or people, as a soldier, marine or seaman, on board of any vessel of…
1Opinion of the Court
SPRAGUE. District Judge,
held that the word “soldier,” used in this section, was sufficient to extend it to cases of this nature. Ordinarily the words of limitation following would qualify all the words preceding; but here “soldier” must be taken in its ordinary sense, as one enlisted to serve on land in a land army. That the fee bill was obligatory on the court, and all offences and offenders that might, under the rules of pleading, have been joined formerly, must be joined now. The only question was, whether the offences set forth in the second; third and fourth counts might, by the rules of…
2Cited by4 opinions
- People v. DillonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
- State v. RathjinSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1923
- Ex Parte Bollman and SwartwoutSupreme Court of the United States · 1807
- Hart v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1898