Case Name: Edward H. RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. Colonel Lloyd ZUPPANN
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1949-05-12
Citations: 174 F.2d 829
Docket Number: No. 9898
Parties: Edward H. RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. Colonel Lloyd ZUPPANN.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 174
Pages: 829–829

Head Matter:
Edward H. RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. Colonel Lloyd ZUPPANN.
No. 9898.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued April 21, 1949.
Decided May 12, 1949.
Ralph S. Croskey, Philadelphia, Pa. (Croskey & Edwards, Philadelphia, Pa., W. J. Fitzgerald and Fitzgerald & Kelly, Scranton, Pa., Merrill W. Linn, Lewisburg, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.
Lt. Col. Nicholas R. Voorhis, Washington, D. C. (Arthur A. Maguire, U. S. Atty., Scranton, Pa., Charles W. Kalp, Asst. U. S. Atty., Lewisburg, Pa., Reginald C. Miller, Lt. Col. JAGC, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Washington, D. C, on the brief), for appellee.
Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and Mc-LAUGHLIN and O’CONNELL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We have examined with care the briefs and appendices of the parties in the instant case and have given due consideration to the oral arguments. The first point raised by the appellant, namely, that the pre-trial investigation under Article of War 70, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1542, was conducted in such a -manner as to deprive the General Court Martial of jurisdiction of the appellant, is disposed of by the opinion of the Supreme Court in Humphrey, Warden, v. Smith, 336 U.S. 69'5, 69 S.Ct. 830. We state that this point was dealt with adequately in the opinion of Judge Follmer, 81 F.Supp. 809, as were the other three grounds raised by the appellant in the court below. We conclude that the appellant received substantial justice from the Court Martial which tried him and that his constitutional rights were not prejudiced.
Accordingly the order of the court below denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus and dismissing the rule to show cause will be affirmed.