Source: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/128/189/case.html
Timestamp: 2013-06-19 17:31:48
Document Index: 7922603

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 100', '§ 725', '§ 100', '§ 725', '§ 58', '§ 100', '§ 725', '§ 72', '§ 72', '§ 72', '§ 72']

Jaehne v. New York - 128 U.S. 189 (1888) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
Justia > US Law > US Case Law > US Supreme Court > Volume 128 > Jaehne v. New York - 128 U.S. 189 > Case	NEW - Receive Justia's FREE Daily Newsletters of Opinion Summaries for the US Supreme Court, all US Federal Appellate Courts & the 50 US State Supreme Courts and Weekly Practice Area Opinion Summaries Newsletters. Subscribe Now
Case	U.S. Supreme CourtJaehne v. New York, 128 U.S. 189 (1888)Jaehne v. New YorkNo. 1409Argued October 29, 1888Decided November 12, 1888128 U.S. 189APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED
This was a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and for a writ of certiorari. The alleged grounds for the issue of the writ are stated in the opinion of the Court. The writ was denied, and the petitioner took this appeal. Page 128 U. S. 190
"the only authority of law for said sentence upon said conviction is a statute of the State of New York passed July 1, 1882, and known as the 'Consolidation Act,' and especially the 2143d section thereof, by force of which the 'Penal Code,' otherwise inapplicable, is made to apply to said offense, and thereby the offense is made punishable, although committed before the 'Consolidation Act' took effect as well as when committed after, indifferently and indistinguishably, by a maximum imprisonment of ten years in Page 128 U. S. 191 state prison; whereas, before that act took effect, said offense was punishable by a maximum imprisonment in the penitentiary of two years; that said law is ex post facto, and that petitioner, having served the full term of imprisonment which could lawfully be imposed, is entitled to be discharged."
By § 100 of the New York City charter [Footnote 3] of 1873, c. 335, Laws of Page 128 U. S. 192 1873, the crime of bribery committed by a member of the common council subjected him upon conviction to imprisonment not exceeding two years, or fine, or both.
By § 725 of the Penal Code, [Footnote 4] "all acts incorporating municipal corporations, and acts amending acts of incorporation or charters of such corporation," were, inter alia, declared not to be affected by it, and recognized as continuing in force Page 128 U. S. 193 notwithstanding the Code, except so far as repealed by subsequent laws.
In People v. O'Neill, 109 N.Y. 261, and People v. Jaehne, 103 N.Y. 182, it was held by the Court of Appeals that § 100 of chapter 335 of the act of 1873 was not within the saving clause of § 725 of the Penal Code, but, on the contrary, was repealed by that Code as soon as it went into operation, December 1, 1882, and that § 58 of the Consolidation Act, which is but a transcript of said § 100, was not kept in force by said § 725, and was superseded by § 72 of the Penal Code, which latter section was prospective merely, and could only operate upon the crime of bribery committed by a member of the common council Page 128 U. S. 194 after the Penal Code took effect. Accepting the conclusions of the highest court of the State of New York as to the operation of the acts in question in substituting, under § 72, a longer term of imprisonment for that which had theretofore existed, it is clear that § 72 governed future cases only; but even if, taken in connection with all the other statutory provisions referred to, it could be construed as also retroactive, as it was admitted upon the argument that the crime, upon conviction of which the petitioner was sentenced to the imprisonment he is now undergoing, was charged to have been committed in 1884, long after the Penal Code and the Consolidation Act went into effect, we perceive no reason for the discharge of the prisoner upon the ground that § 72 might be held invalid in respect to a crime committed between December 1, 1882, and April 1, 1883, if drawn in question in a proper case. The rule upon this subject which we consider applicable is that