In re Fauldan

20 D.C. 433
CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals
DecidedMarch 7, 1892
DocketNo. 165
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 20 D.C. 433 (In re Fauldan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Fauldan, 20 D.C. 433 (D.C. 1892).

Opinion

The Chiee Justice

delivered the opinion of the court:

The relator was convicted of petty larceny and was clearly entitled to a trial by jury, which he did not have and could not get at the time that he was tried in the Police Court. It is claimed by counsel for the Government that petty larceny is one of the petty offenses that existed at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, in which case the defendant was not entitled to a trial by jury. The offense of petty larceny was never regarded at common law as a petty offense, but on the contrary as a felony, and not long since was punishable by death in England. It was always triable by jury.

This case comes within the ruling of the court at the present term in the case of in re Addison Day and also within the ruling of the court in the case of Herzog, just decided.

The relator is discharged.

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

Related

Augustus E. Harvin v. United States
445 F.2d 675 (D.C. Circuit, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 D.C. 433, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-fauldan-dc-1892.