Gibson v. Stiles

Fifth Circuit

Gibson v. Stiles

90 F.2d 998, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 4010

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJuly 2, 1937

DocketNo. 8461

StatusPublished

This text of 90 F.2d 998 (Gibson v. Stiles) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gibson v. Stiles, 90 F.2d 998, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 4010 (5th Cir. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

FOSTER, Circuit Judge.

Appellant was ordered removed from Tyler, Tex., in the Eastern District, to Houston, Tex., in the Southern District, to answer to an indictment returned against him and a number of other individuals and corporations, which charged a conspiracy to violate the act of Congress of February 22, 1935, known as the Connally Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 715 et seq.). He sued out a writ of- habeas corpus, which after a hearing was dismissed. This appeal followed.

The only objection made to the indictment in the petition for habeas corpus is that the Connally Act is unconstitutional on various grounds. So far as the record discloses, there was nothing before the District Court but the petition for habeas corpus and a copy of the indictment. The indictment is sufficient in form to charge the offense and made prima facie proof of probable cause. There is nothing to show appellant offered evidence to rebut this presumption or denied identity. The constitutionality of the law, which the defendants are alleged to have conspired to violate, is a question to be decided by the trial court and not upon habeas corpus to prevent removal. Furthermore, we have heretofore held the act to be constitutional. The writ of habeas corpus was properly denied. The following authorities support these conclusions: U. S. ex rel. Kassin v. Mulligan, 295 U.S. 396, 55 S.Ct. 781, 79 L.Ed. 1501; Griswold v. President of the U. S. (C.C.A.) 82 F.(2d) 922; Barrow v. Owen (C.C.A.) 89 F.(2d) 476; Hamilton v. U. S. (C.C.A.) 90 F.(2d) 996, decided June 25, 1937.

Affirmed..

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

FOSTER, Circuit Judge.

Appellant was ordered removed from Tyler, Tex., in the Eastern District, to Houston, Tex., in the Southern District, to answer to an indictment returned against him and a number of other individuals and corporations, which charged a conspiracy to violate the act of Congress of February 22, 1935, known as the Connally Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 715 et seq.). He sued out a writ of- habeas corpus, which after a hearing was dismissed. This appeal followed.

The only objection made to the indictment in the petition for habeas corpus is that the Connally Act is unconstitutional on various grounds. So far as the record discloses, there was nothing before the District Court but the petition for habeas corpus and a copy of the indictment. The indictment is sufficient in form to charge the offense and made prima facie proof of probable cause. There is nothing to show appellant offered evidence to rebut this presumption or denied identity. The constitutionality of the law, which the defendants are alleged to have conspired to violate, is a question to be decided by the trial court and not upon habeas corpus to prevent removal. Furthermore, we have heretofore held the act to be constitutional. The writ of habeas corpus was properly denied. The following authorities support these conclusions: U. S. ex rel. Kassin v. Mulligan, 295 U.S. 396, 55 S.Ct. 781, 79 L.Ed. 1501; Griswold v. President of the U. S. (C.C.A.) 82 F.(2d) 922; Barrow v. Owen (C.C.A.) 89 F.(2d) 476; Hamilton v. U. S. (C.C.A.) 90 F.(2d) 996, decided June 25, 1937.

Affirmed..

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 F.2d 998, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 4010, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibson-v-stiles-ca5-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack