Legal Opinion

United States ex rel. Cunningham v. Mathues

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided May 9, 1928PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

DICKINSON, District Judge.

We have entitled this cause as above. There are in form three proceedings:(1) Hearing by the court sitting as a committing magistrate under R. S. § 1014 (18 USCA § 591).(2) Motion for warrant of removal.(3) Hearing upon writ of habeas corpus.

For the convenience of the court and of Counsel and parties, it was arranged that the court should sit as a committing magistrate, and as such would determine all questions which might be raised in any one or all of the *273proceedings listed. If the court was of opinion that the defendant should not be held for trial, no other steps…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Beavers v. HenkelSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
  2. Benson v. HenkelSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
  3. Swan v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1927

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. United States ex rel. Cunningham v. FettersDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1930

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API