Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Page 75587 of about 756,152 results (2.464 seconds)

1795

U S Vs. Guinet

Court : US Supreme Court

U S v. GUINET - 2 U.S. 321 (1795) U.S. Supreme Court U S v. GUINET, 2 U.S. 321 (1795) 2 U.S. 321 (Dall.) The United States v. Guinet, et al. Circuit Court, Pennsylvania District April Term, 1795 This was an indictment against Etienne Guinet and John Baptist Le Maitre, for a misdemeanor in fitting out and arming Les Jumeaux (The Twins) in the port of Philadelphia, to be employed in the service of the Republic of France, against Great Britain, both powers being at peace with the United States. The act on which the indictment was founded, contained the following sections: Sec. 3. And be it further enacted and declared, That if any person shall, within any of the ports, harbours, bays, rivers, or other waters of the United States, fit out and arm, or attempt to fit out and arm, or procure to be fitted out and armed, or shall knowingly be concerned in the furnishing, fitting out or arming of any ship or vessel, with intent that such ship or vessel shall be employed in the service of ...

Tag this Judgment!

1795

Parassel Vs. Gautier

Court : US Supreme Court

PARASSEL v. GAUTIER - 2 U.S. 330 (1795) U.S. Supreme Court PARASSEL v. GAUTIER, 2 U.S. 330 (1795) 2 U.S. 330 (Dall.) Parasset v. Gautier Circuit Court, Pennsylvania District April Term, 1795 A Capias had issued in this suit, returnable to the present Term; but previously to the return of the writ, there had been a hearing before Judge Peters, at his chambers, upon a citation to shew cause, why the defendant should not be discharged on common bail; the Judge had ordered bail to be given; and the defendant had appealed from this order to the Court. The merits of the appeal were now discussed; and, independent of some circumstances relating to the origin of the debt (which the Court said ought not to weigh upon a question of bail*) the material facts appeared to be these: An action had been instituted in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, between the same parties, for the same cause; and on a hearing before Chief Justice M'Kean, the defendant was ordered to be discharged on common...

Tag this Judgment!

1795

GEYGER'S LESSEE Vs. GEYGER

Court : US Supreme Court

GEYGER'S LESSEE v. GEYGER - 2 U.S. 332 (1795) U.S. Supreme Court GEYGER'S LESSEE v. GEYGER, 2 U.S. 332 (1795) 2 U.S. 332 (Dall.) Geyger's Lessee v. Geyger Circuit Court, Pennsylvania District April Term, 1795 A rule had been obtained by the plaintiff, requiring the defendant to shew cause, why an order should not be made for the production of certain deeds and papers on the trial of this cause, agreeably to the provision of the 15th section of the judicial act: And now, on proof that a copy of the rule was served on the plaintiff's attorney, it was moved to make the same absolute. Page 2 U.S. 332, 333 But, for the defendant, it was contended, that the notice of the rule should have been given to the party, and not to his attorney. In Rivers v. Walker, 1 Dall. Rep. 81. notice, in the case of referees, is directed to be given to the party; and the reason is stronger in the present instance, as the defendant lives at a great distance, and the attorney ought not to be put to th...

Tag this Judgment!

1795

U S Vs. Caldwell

Court : US Supreme Court

U S v. CALDWELL - 2 U.S. 333 (1795) U.S. Supreme Court U S v. CALDWELL, 2 U.S. 333 (1795) 2 U.S. 333 (Dall.) The United States v. Caldwell Circuit Court, Pennsylvania District April Term, 1795 This was an indictment for a misdemeanor committed in Northumberland County, in which a subpoena had issued, on the part of the defendant, to summon Samuel M'Clay, Esq. and John M'Pherson, Esq. Associate Judges of the County Courts of Northumberland, to appear in the Circuit Court as Page 2 U.S. 333, 334 witnesses on the 4th of May. The subpoena was served on Mr. M'Clay on the 28th of April, and on Mr. M'Pherson the next day. E. Tilghman now produced an affidavit, 'that they were material witnesses, without the benefit of whose testimony, the defendant apprehended and believed he could not safely proceed to trial;' and moved for a postponement, not only in this case, but, also, in cases of Montgomery, Lang and Stockman; in which, to save expence, no subpoena had issued, though the sam...

Tag this Judgment!

1795

The United States Vs. the Insurgents of Pennsylvania

Court : US Supreme Court

THE UNITED STATES v. THE INSURGENTS OF PENNSYLVANIA - 2 U.S. 335 (1795) U.S. Supreme Court THE UNITED STATES v. THE INSURGENTS OF PENNSYLVANIA, 2 U.S. 335 (1795) 2 U.S. 335 (F.Cas.) 2 Dall. 335 The United States v. The Insurgents of Pennsylvania Circuit Court, Pennsylvania District April Term, 1795 Several indictments for high treason having been found against persons concerned in the insurrection in the four Western Counties of Pennsylvania, a Venire was issued in each case, for summoning a Jury returnable to the present Term; and to each writ the Marshall returned a separate pannel, containing the names of thirty-six Jurors, from the city of Philadelphia, fifteen from the county of Delaware, nine from the county of Chester and twelve from each county, in which the treason was charged to have been committed, making seventy-two Jurors on each pannel, and one hundred and eight Jurors summoned on the whole. The act of Congress (1 Vol. p. 112. s. 29) having directed 'that any p...

Tag this Judgment!

1795

The United States Vs. Stewart and Wright

Court : US Supreme Court

THE UNITED STATES v. STEWART AND WRIGHT - 2 U.S. 343 (1795) U.S. Supreme Court THE UNITED STATES v. STEWART AND WRIGHT, 2 U.S. 343 (1795) 2 U.S. 343 (F.Cas.) 2 Dall. 343 The United States v. Stewart and Wright Circuit Court, Pennsylvania District April Term, 1795 The Prisoners being brought to the bar, on separate charges of High Treason, Lewis read their depositions, stating the absence of material witnesses in both cases, and moved to postpone the trials 'till an opportunity was given, to procure the attendance of those witnesses from the Western Counties. He urged, the general inconveniency of a commitment and trial at so great a distance, from the scene of the criminal transaction; the friendless situation of the prisoners, and the poverty of the witnesses; and he alledged, that, under such circumstances, an immediate trial would be a mere ex parte proceeding. To shew the lenity with which persons thus charged have always been treated, he cited Fost. C. L. 1, and to account f...

Tag this Judgment!

1795

U S Vs. Porter

Court : US Supreme Court

U S v. PORTER - 2 U.S. 345 (1795) U.S. Supreme Court U S v. PORTER, 2 U.S. 345 (1795) 2 U.S. 345 (Dall.) The United States v. Porter Circuit Court, Pennsylvania District April Term, 1795 Indictment for high treason, committed in the county of Allegheny in the State of Pennsylvania, by levying war against the United States. After a long examination of witnesses it was discovered, that the defendant, though he was at Couche's Fort, had taken no part in the insurrection, that, in fact, he was not the person, liable to the charge, but another person of the same name; and, thereupon, the Jury, by direction of the Court, found a verdict of Not Guilty. The only occurrence, therefore, which it is material to notice on this trial, was the following. There were two of the Petty Jury, (Thomas Coates and William Callady) who being called, and not challenged, alledged sickness in excuse for not serving, and they were, for the present, set apart: But the whole pannel having been eventuall...

Tag this Judgment!

1795

U.S. Vs. Vigol

Court : US Supreme Court

U.S. v. VIGOL - 2 U.S. 346 (1795) U.S. Supreme Court U.S. v. VIGOL, 2 U.S. 346 (1795) 2 U.S. 346 (Dall.) The United States v. Vigol Circuit Court, Pennsylvania District April Term, 1795 Indictment for high treason, in levying war against the United States. The prisoner was one of the most active of the insurgents in the Western Counties of Pennsylvania, and had accompanied the armed party, who attacked the house of the Excise Officer, (Reigan's) in Westmoreland, with guns, drums, &c.; insisted upon his surrendering his official papers, and extorted an oath from him, that he would never act again in the execution of the Excise Law. The same party then proceeded to the house of Wells, the Excise Officer in Fayette county, swearing that the Excise Law should never be carried into effect, and that they would destroy Wells and his house. On their arrival, Wells had fled and concealed himself; whereupon they ransacked the house; burned it, with all its contents, including the p...

Tag this Judgment!

1795

The United States Vs. Mitchell

Court : US Supreme Court

THE UNITED STATES v. MITCHELL - 2 U.S. 348 (1795) U.S. Supreme Court THE UNITED STATES v. MITCHELL, 2 U.S. 348 (1795) 2 U.S. 348 (F.Cas.) 2 Dall. 348 The United States v. Mitchell Circuit Court, Pennsylvania District April Term, 1795 Indictment for High Treason, by levying war against the United States. It was alledged, that the prisoner was one of the party that assembled at Couche's Fort, armed; that he proceeded thence to Gen. Neville's, and assisted at the burning of the general's house; that he attended with great zeal at the meeting at Bradock's field; and that on the day prescribed for signing a submission to the government he was intoxicated, refused to sign himself, and was active in dissuading others from signing. The circumstance of the prisoner's being at Couche's was proved by a number of witnesses; his being at Bradock's field, by one witness and his own confession; but there was only one positive witness to the fact of his having been at the burning of general Nevi...

Tag this Judgment!

1795

U S Vs. Mitchell

Court : US Supreme Court

U S v. MITCHELL - 2 U.S. 357 (1795) U.S. Supreme Court U S v. MITCHELL, 2 U.S. 357 (1795) 2 U.S. 357 (Dall.) The United States v. Mitchell Circuit Court, Pennsylvania District April Term, 1795 In the course of the trial the following points were ruled by the Court. I. The Attorney of the District proposed to prove, that a circular letter had been written at Canonsburgh, on the 28th of July 1794, by several leaders of the insurrection, calling upon the militia officers, and other citizens, to assemble at Bradock's field on the 1st of August following, with arms, ammunition, and provisions; that the witness had seen the original letter, which was left with him, under instructions to pass it on to another person; and that the copy now produced was conformable, in substance, to the original. But it was objected, by the counsel for the prisoner, that before a copy of the letter could be given in evidence, the loss of the original must be proved; and even then the witness must be...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //