Opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, at January Term, 1832, Delivered by Mr. Chief Justice Marshall; Together with the Opinion of Mr. Justice McLean, in the Case of Samuel A. Worcester, Plaintiff in Error Versus the State of

Opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, at January Term, 1832, Delivered by Mr. Chief Justice Marshall; Together with the Opinion of Mr. Justice McLean, in the Case of Samuel A. Worcester, Plaintiff in Error Versus the State of

List price: US$9.02

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks

Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1832 edition. Excerpt: ... State and the keeper thereof was directed to receive him into (custody, and keep him at hard labor in the penitentiary, during the term of four years. _ _ Another individual was included in the same ind_ictment and joined in the plea to the jurisdiction of the court, and was also included in the sentence, ut his name is not adverted to, because the principles of the case are fully presented, in the above statement. _ _ _ To reverse this judgment, a writ of error was obtained, wh_ich, having been returned, with the record of the proceedings, is now before this_Court. The first question which it becomes necessary to examine, is, whether the record has been duly certified, so as to bring the proceedings regularly before this tribunal. _ _ A writ of error was allowed, in this case, by one of the J ii_stices of this Court, and the requisite security taken. A citation was also issued, in the form prescribed to the State of Georgia, a true copy of which, as appears by the oath of William Patten, was delivered to the Governor, on the twentyfourth day of November last; and that another true copy was delivered, on tshettewenty-second day of the same month, to the Attorney General of the ta.. The record was returned by the clerk, under the seal of the Court, who certifies that it is a full and complete exemplification of the proceedings and judgment had in the case; and, he further certifies, that the o_riginal bond, and a copy of the writ of error, were duly deposited and fi1ed in the clerk's otfice of said court, on the tenth da of November last. _ Is it necessary, in such a case, t t the record should be certified by the Judge who held the court? _ _ In the case of Martin vs; Hi_inter's lessee, which was a writ of error to the court...show more

Product details

  • Paperback | 28 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 2mm | 68g
  • Rarebooksclub.com
  • English
  • Illustrations, black and white
  • 1236925513
  • 9781236925510