United States v. Sulzberger

S.D. New York

United States v. Sulzberger

27 F. Cas. 1362, 7 Int. Rev. Rec. 201

DecidedJuly 1, 1868

StatusPublished

This text of 27 F. Cas. 1362 (United States v. Sulzberger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Sulzberger, 27 F. Cas. 1362, 7 Int. Rev. Rec. 201 (S.D.N.Y. 1868).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT

in passing sentence said substantially that the penalty incurred by the defendant was a fine of not less than $1,000 and not exceeding $10.000 and two years’ imprisonment, at the discretion of the court. It was the duty of the court and all those engaged in the administration of the law to carry out its provisions, and by that means to suppress the demoralization that existed, and create a healthy public opinion in its stead. In the ease of Fleischauer the conviction should stand against him, but the sentence should be suspended and remain in force to be hereafter, if found necessary, enforced at any time, should the defendant transgress the law. The case of Charles Hartman was different. The sentence of the court in his case should be a fine of $5,000 and ten days’ imprisonment, and to be further detained in custody until the fine shall be paid. Hartman was then removed to prison and Fleischauer released.

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

THE COURT

in passing sentence said substantially that the penalty incurred by the defendant was a fine of not less than $1,000 and not exceeding $10.000 and two years’ imprisonment, at the discretion of the court. It was the duty of the court and all those engaged in the administration of the law to carry out its provisions, and by that means to suppress the demoralization that existed, and create a healthy public opinion in its stead. In the ease of Fleischauer the conviction should stand against him, but the sentence should be suspended and remain in force to be hereafter, if found necessary, enforced at any time, should the defendant transgress the law. The case of Charles Hartman was different. The sentence of the court in his case should be a fine of $5,000 and ten days’ imprisonment, and to be further detained in custody until the fine shall be paid. Hartman was then removed to prison and Fleischauer released.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 F. Cas. 1362, 7 Int. Rev. Rec. 201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-sulzberger-nysd-1868.