McConlogue v. Aderhold

Fifth Circuit

McConlogue v. Aderhold

56 F.2d 152, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 2738

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 20, 1932

DocketNo. 6451

StatusPublished

This text of 56 F.2d 152 (McConlogue v. Aderhold) 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

McConlogue v. Aderhold, 56 F.2d 152, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 2738 (5th Cir. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

McConlogue was convicted upon an indictment in two counts, the first of which charged him with forging, and the second with uttering, the same hank cheek. He was sentenced to serve five years on the first count, and three years on the second count, in the Atlanta penitentiary; the sentences to run consecutively. After serving five years he sued out a writ of habeas corpus to procure his release on the theory that he was charged with only one offense. This appeal was taken from an order of the District Court discharging the writ and remanding him to custody.

While there is some conflict in the authorities, in our opinion the better view is that forgery and uttering forgery are not one and the same offense, but are two sep[153]*153arate and distinct offenses. Read v. United States, 55 App. D. C. 43, 299 F. 918; 2 Bishop’s Cr. Law, § 1066(1).

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

McConlogue was convicted upon an indictment in two counts, the first of which charged him with forging, and the second with uttering, the same hank cheek. He was sentenced to serve five years on the first count, and three years on the second count, in the Atlanta penitentiary; the sentences to run consecutively. After serving five years he sued out a writ of habeas corpus to procure his release on the theory that he was charged with only one offense. This appeal was taken from an order of the District Court discharging the writ and remanding him to custody.

While there is some conflict in the authorities, in our opinion the better view is that forgery and uttering forgery are not one and the same offense, but are two sep[153]*153arate and distinct offenses. Read v. United States, 55 App. D. C. 43, 299 F. 918; 2 Bishop’s Cr. Law, § 1066(1).

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 F.2d 152, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 2738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcconlogue-v-aderhold-ca5-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack