Ex parte Casey

N.D. New York

Ex parte Casey

18 F. 86, 1883 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. New York

DecidedSeptember 21, 1883

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 18 F. 86 (Ex parte Casey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ex parte Casey, 18 F. 86, 1883 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137 (N.D.N.Y. 1883).

Pincite

Opinion

Coxe, J.

On Wednesday, March 1, 1882, the petitioner, having been previously convicted of an assault with intent to kill, was sentenced by the supreme court of the District of Columbia to four years’ imprisonment in the state prison at Auburn, New York. The execution of this sentence was, on the defendant’s motion, postponed to give him an opportunity to appeal. Pending the stay, the court, on the third day of June, 1882, resumed its session, “pursuant to adjournment,” the same judge presiding, when the judgment of March 1st was set aside, and the same sentence again pronounced, except that the Erie county penitentiary was substituted for the state prison as the place of confinement.

A discharge is demanded upon the ground that the court had no authority to enter the second judgment. It appears from the copy of the record submitted that the second sentence was passed, not, as is asserted in petitioner’s brief, at a subsequent term, but on an adjourned day of the same term. There can be no doubt that the court has ample authority to set aside, modify, or amend its judgments, orders, and decrees at the term at which they are rendered; and the papers in this case do not indicate that any act was committed which at all transcended the well-known powers of the court.

The petitioner had not been imprisoned under the first sentence; its operation had been suspended upon his motion and for his benefit. No injury ivas done him by the change of penitentiaries and none of his rights were invaded. See Whart. Crim. Pl. & Pr. (8th Ed.) 913; Miller’s Case, 9 Cow. 730; U. S. v. May, 2 McArthur, 512; Bank v. Withers, 6 Wheat. 106.

It follows that the discharge must be refused and the prisoner remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Coxe, J.

On Wednesday, March 1, 1882, the petitioner, having been previously convicted of an assault with intent to kill, was sentenced by the supreme court of the District of Columbia to four years’ imprisonment in the state prison at Auburn, New York. The execution of this sentence was, on the defendant’s motion, postponed to give him an opportunity to appeal. Pending the stay, the court, on the third day of June, 1882, resumed its session, “pursuant to adjournment,” the same judge presiding, when the judgment of March 1st was set aside, and the same sentence again pronounced, except that the Erie county penitentiary was substituted for the state prison as the place of confinement.

A discharge is demanded upon the ground that the court had no authority to enter the second judgment. It appears from the copy of the record submitted that the second sentence was passed, not, as is asserted in petitioner’s brief, at a subsequent term, but on an adjourned day of the same term. There can be no doubt that the court has ample authority to set aside, modify, or amend its judgments, orders, and decrees at the term at which they are rendered; and the papers in this case do not indicate that any act was committed which at all transcended the well-known powers of the court.

The petitioner had not been imprisoned under the first sentence; its operation had been suspended upon his motion and for his benefit. No injury ivas done him by the change of penitentiaries and none of his rights were invaded. See Whart. Crim. Pl. & Pr. (8th Ed.) 913; Miller’s Case, 9 Cow. 730; U. S. v. May, 2 McArthur, 512; Bank v. Withers, 6 Wheat. 106.

It follows that the discharge must be refused and the prisoner remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 F. 86, 1883 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-casey-nynd-1883.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack