28. Presence of offender; constructive.
There may be a constructive presence in a State, distinct from personal
presence, by which a crime committed in another State may be
consummated, and render the person consummating it punishable
at that place. Hyde v. United States, 347.
29. Territorial extent affecting administration of.
The size of our country has not become too great for the effective ad-
ministration of criminal justice. Ib.
30. Verdict; qualification of; application of act of January 15, 1897 to
District of Columbia; effect of District Code on.
The act of January 15, 1897, 29 Stat. 487, c. 29, permitting the jury in
a capital case of murder or rape under § 5339 or § 5345, Rev. Stat.,
to qualify the verdict by adding "without capital punishment"
was applicable to the District of Columbia until superseded by the
special provisions on the same subject in the District Code.
(Winston v. United States, 172 U. S. 303.) Johnson v. United
States, 405.
While a mere quitclaim deed does not pass after acquired title, the
equitable title of one who was also trustee to acquire the title for
the grantee will pass by such a deed. United States v. Colorado
Anthracite Co., 219.
DELAWARE DIMINISHED INDIAN RESERVATION.
DELEGATION OF POWER.
See IMMIGRATION, 3.
DEPORTATION OF ALIENS.
See IMMIGRATION, 5-8;
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 8.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
See CRIMINAL LAW, 23, 24, 25, 27, 30;
STATUTES, A 3.
DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 3, 7-15;
IMMIGRATION, 2.
EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYÊ.
See CRIMINAL LAW, 9.
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 14-17.
1. Laches precluding relief against use of name.
The doctrine of laches applies to the use of a name of a fraternal cor-
poration and equity will not grant relief against the use of the
name by parties who have been using it for many years without
objection, at the instance of the older organization, there not
appearing to be any fraud or intent to deceive the public. Creswill
v. Knights of Pythias, 246.
2. Right to relief in, under doctrine of clean hands; quære as to.
Quare whether a defendant in a libel suit who made a public charge
of malfeasance in office without having evidence of truth sufficient
to warrant prudent counsel in making an issue of it, is not barred
from relief in equity under the doctrine of clean hands. Pickford
Testimony of jurors as to verdict rendered; admissibility of.
Where the jury render a verdict within the issues, testimony of jurors
themselves should not be received to show matters which essen-
tially inhere in the verdict and necessarily can receive no corrobo-
ration. Hyde v. United States, 347.
EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS.
See JURISDICTION, C 6, 7.
1. When case arising under laws of United States; application of rule.
A case is not one arising under the laws of the United States unless it
really and substantially involves a dispute or controversy respect-
ing the validity, construction or effect of such a law upon the
determination whereof the result depends. This rule applies
peculiarly to suits respecting rights to land acquired under laws
of the United States; otherwise all suits to establish title to land
which had been part of the public domain would be cognizable in
the Federal courts. Shulthis v. McDougal, 561.
2. Question of right of Federal corporation to incorporation in State a
non-Federal one.
Whether persons have a right to be incorporated in a State as a state
branch of an organization incorporated in the District of Columbia
under an act of Congress is a non-Federal question. Creswill v.
Knights of Pythias, 246.
FLATHEAD INDIAN RESERVATION.
FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.
See LOCAL LAW (N. Y.).
See EQUITY, 1;
TRADE-NAME.
Presumption of, not indulged; rule applicable to Government.
The rule that fraud is not presumed and that one basing his defense
thereon should prove it, applies to the Government; and if the
answer contains no allegation of fraud, silence in the findings of the
court below will be taken as showing that none was proved, and an
affirmative finding that there was no fraud is not necessary to
sustain the judgment. United States v. Colorado Anthracite Co.,
219.
The writ of habeas corpus cannot be made to perform the office of writ
of error. Glasgow v. Moyer, 420.
2. Scope of examination on.
The rule that on habeas corpus the court examines only into the power
and authority of the court restraining the petitioner to act, and not
the correctness of its conclusions, Matter of Gregory, 219 U. S. 210,
applies where the petitioner attacks as unconstitutional, or as too
uncertain, the law which is the foundation of the indictment and
trial. Ib.
3. Defenses available on.
A defendant in a criminal case cannot reserve defenses which he might
make on the trial and use them as a basis for habeas proceedings to
attack the judgment after trial and verdict of guilty. It would
introduce confusion in the administration of justice. Ib.
|