In Re Hague for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

145 A. 618, 104 N.J. Eq. 369, 1929 N.J. LEXIS 520
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedApril 18, 1929
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 145 A. 618 (In Re Hague for a Writ of Habeas Corpus) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Hague for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, 145 A. 618, 104 N.J. Eq. 369, 1929 N.J. LEXIS 520 (N.J. 1929).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

On the ultimate question whether the order brought up should be reversed, the court is equally divided in opinion, and for want of a majority for reversal it will be affirmed.

At the request of the judges the following questions are ordered to be voted upon separately:

1. Is Joint Eesolution No. 13, taken as a whole, a valid exercise of legislative power, even if some one or more of the inquiries suggested therein may be unlawful ?

3. Was the subpoena lawfully issued, and did it lawfully require Mayor Hague’s attendance before the committee notwithstanding the assumed inclusion therein of illegal requirements for the production of documents P

3. Was it lawful to order a warrant for the arrest of Mayor Hague and to bring him before the legislature ?

4. Was the warrant in this case, if otherwise valid, vitiated by lack of a seal ?

5. Does the warrant, commanding the arrest of said Hague, and that he be brought before the bar of the senate and assembly “to answer as and for a contempt in refusing to obey the said subpoena” by its language contemplate penal action against said Hague on account of such alleged contempt?

*370 6. If so, was it within the power of the senate and general assembly to inflict such punishment?

7. Was it competent for the legislature to direct the arrest of said Hague under conditions which might involve his imprisonment until some later day (in this case six days later) before he could be brought before that body in session?

8. Shall the decree be reversed?

Question No. 1—

Fes — The Chief-Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Kalisch, Black, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Van Buskirk, McGlen'non, Kays, Hetfield, JJ. 13.

No — None.

Question No. 3—

Yes — The Chief-Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Kalisch, Black, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Van Buskirk, McGlennon, Kays, Hetfield, JJ. 13.

Yes — The Chief-Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Kalisch, Black, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Van Buskirk, MoGlennon, Kays, Hetfield, JJ. 13.

Question No. 4—

F es — None.

No — The Chief-Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Kalisch, Black, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Van Buskirk, McGlennon, Kays, Hetfield, JJ. 13.

*371 Question No. 5—

Yes — The Chief-Justice, Teekchaed, Paekee, Kalisch, Black, Campbell, Lloyd, White, Yak Buskiek, McGlekkok,. Kays, Hetfield, JJ. 12.

Question No. 6—

Yes — The Chief-Justice, Teekchaed, Kalisch, Black, Lloyd, White, JJ. 6.

No — Paekee, Campbell, Yak Buskiek, McGlekkok, Kays, Hetfield,-JJ. 6.

Question No. 7—

Yes — The Chief-Justice, Teekchaed, Kalisch, Black, Lloyd, White, JJ. 6.

No — -Paekee, Campbell, Yak Buskiek, McGlekkok, Kays, Hetfield, JJ. 6.

Question No. 8—

Yes — The Chief-Justice, Teekchaed, Kalisch, Black, Lloyd, White, JJ. 6.

No — Paekee, Campbell, Yak Buskiek, McGlekkok, Kays, Hetfield, JJ. 6.

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

Related

John Paff v. Ocean County Prosecutor's Office
141 A.3d 300 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2016)
State v. Pleva
496 A.2d 375 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1985)
Squires v. Atlantic Cty. Freeholder Bd.
491 A.2d 823 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1985)
State v. Duble
410 A.2d 1173 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1979)
Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. v. Glaser
365 A.2d 1 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1976)
Morss v. Forbes
132 A.2d 1 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1957)
In re the Finance Committee of the Legislature
3 V.I. 212 (Virgin Islands, 1956)
Eggers v. Kenny
104 A.2d 10 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1954)
State Ex Rel. Robinson v. Fluent
191 P.2d 241 (Washington Supreme Court, 1948)
McRell v. Kelly
1 A.2d 926 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1938)
In Re Kelly
198 A. 203 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1938)
In Re Stegman
163 A. 422 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
145 A. 618, 104 N.J. Eq. 369, 1929 N.J. LEXIS 520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hague-for-a-writ-of-habeas-corpus-nj-1929.