United States ex rel. Shiekman v. Reing

Third Circuit

United States ex rel. Shiekman v. Reing

86 F.2d 1021, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 3993

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedNovember 24, 1936

DocketNo. 6166

StatusPublished

This text of 86 F.2d 1021 (United States ex rel. Shiekman v. Reing) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States ex rel. Shiekman v. Reing, 86 F.2d 1021, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 3993 (3d Cir. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this case it appears a United States commissioner, after hearing, made an order to remove Samuel Shiekman to the District of New Jersey for trial on an indictment there found. Thereupon Shiekman sued out a writ of habeas corpus. On hearing, the District Court discharged the writ and remanded him to the custody of the United States marshal for removal. Following this, Shiekman took this appeal.

After argument of counsel and full consideration had, we find ourselves in accord with the action of the court below. The indictment sufficiently charged a crime and identified Shiekman as a defendant therein.

The additional question is raised in this court that the indictment was not certified by the foreman of the grand jury. That question was not raised in the court below, was not ruled on by it nor exception taken, but, in the interest of justice, we have examined the original indictment, made inquiry, and find the foreman did certify when the indictment was found.

So holding, the order made below is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this case it appears a United States commissioner, after hearing, made an order to remove Samuel Shiekman to the District of New Jersey for trial on an indictment there found. Thereupon Shiekman sued out a writ of habeas corpus. On hearing, the District Court discharged the writ and remanded him to the custody of the United States marshal for removal. Following this, Shiekman took this appeal.

After argument of counsel and full consideration had, we find ourselves in accord with the action of the court below. The indictment sufficiently charged a crime and identified Shiekman as a defendant therein.

The additional question is raised in this court that the indictment was not certified by the foreman of the grand jury. That question was not raised in the court below, was not ruled on by it nor exception taken, but, in the interest of justice, we have examined the original indictment, made inquiry, and find the foreman did certify when the indictment was found.

So holding, the order made below is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 F.2d 1021, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 3993, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-ex-rel-shiekman-v-reing-ca3-1936.