Fields v. District of Columbia
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
In error to the Police Court of the District of Columbia. The Court in the opinion stated the facts as follows: The appellant, Albert Fields, was arraigned in the police court of the District upon an information against him wherein he was charged with being “a vagrant, an idle and disorderly person, a person of evil life and fame, a person without visible means of support, a person repeatedly in and about the streets, avenues, alleys, roads, and highways, to wit, C street…
Read the full summary
In error to the Police Court of the District of Columbia. The Court in the opinion stated the facts as follows: The appellant, Albert Fields, was arraigned in the police court of the District upon an information against him wherein he was charged with being “a vagrant, an idle and disorderly person, a person of evil life and fame, a person without visible means of support, a person repeatedly in and about the streets, avenues, alleys, roads, and highways, to wit, C street northwest,” in alleged violation of the act of Congress of July 8, 1898 (30 Stat. at L. 128, chap. 638), entitled “An Act…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Morris
There are seven assignments of error here, but there are only three questions of law raised by them: First, whether the statute is valid or void for uncertainty; second, whether the defendant was entitled to a trial hy jury; third, whether there was testimony in the case sufficient in law to support the information. But we do not deem it necessary to consider either the' first or the second question, for we are very clearly of opinion that there was no sufficient testimony in the case to charge the defendant with criminality or delinquency of any kind under the law.
By the concession of the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Clark v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1943
- Taylor v. United Broadcasting Co.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1948
- Zis v. HermanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1944
- Petty v. RoweDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1952