Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    Us Vs Hart Statcon

    Uploaded by

    Nathan Marcus
    The document summarizes a case between the US vs Hart regarding a charge of vagrancy. It provides background facts on the defendants and evidence presented against them. Specifically, it examines whether the clause "without visible means of support" in the vagrancy statute applies to people found loitering in saloons or gambling houses. The court ultimately rules the defendants are acquitted, finding they had legitimate means of support from their jobs, and their sole offense was gambling which was made unlawful by another statute. The court also discusses principles of statutory construction, noting punctuation alone is not conclusive and intent should govern interpretation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Us Vs Hart Statcon

    Uploaded by

    Nathan Marcus
    2K views2 pages
    The document summarizes a case between the US vs Hart regarding a charge of vagrancy. It provides background facts on the defendants and evidence presented against them. Specifically, it examines whether the clause "without visible means of support" in the vagrancy statute applies to people found loitering in saloons or gambling houses. The court ultimately rules the defendants are acquitted, finding they had legitimate means of support from their jobs, and their sole offense was gambling which was made unlawful by another statute. The court also discusses principles of statutory construction, noting punctuation alone is not conclusive and intent should govern interpretation.

    Original Description:

    US V HART

    Original Title

    Us vs Hart Statcon

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a case between the US vs Hart regarding a charge of vagrancy. It provides background facts on the defendants and evidence presented against them. Specifically, it examines whether the clause "without visible means of support" in the vagrancy statute applies to people found loitering in saloons or gambling houses. The court ultimately rules the defendants are acquitted, finding they had legitimate means of support from their jobs, and their sole offense was gambling which was made unlawful by another statute. The court also discusses principles of statutory construction, noting punctuation alone is not conclusive and intent should govern interpretation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2K views2 pages

    Us Vs Hart Statcon

    Uploaded by

    Nathan Marcus
    The document summarizes a case between the US vs Hart regarding a charge of vagrancy. It provides background facts on the defendants and evidence presented against them. Specifically, it examines whether the clause "without visible means of support" in the vagrancy statute applies to people found loitering in saloons or gambling houses. The court ultimately rules the defendants are acquitted, finding they had legitimate means of support from their jobs, and their sole offense was gambling which was made unlawful by another statute. The court also discusses principles of statutory construction, noting punctuation alone is not conclusive and intent should govern interpretation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    US VS HART

    Facts:

     Hart, Miller, and Natividad, were arraigned in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga on
    a charge of vagrancy under the provisions of Act No. 519, found guilty, and were each
    sentenced to six months' imprisonment. Hart and Miller were further sentenced to a fine
    of P200, and Natividad to a fine of P100. All appealed.
     The evidence of the prosecution as to the defendant Hart shows that he pleaded guilty
    and was convicted on a gambling charge about two or three weeks before his arrest on
    the vagrancy charge; that he had been conducting two gambling games, one in his
    saloon and the other in another house, for a considerable length of time, the games
    running every night.
     From this evidence it will be noted that each of the defendants was earning a living at a
    lawful trade or business, quite sufficient to support himself in comfort, and that the
    evidence which the prosecution must rely upon for a conviction consists of their having
    spent their evenings in regularly licensed saloons, participating in gambling games which
    are expressly made unlawful by the Gambling Act, No. 1757.

    Section 1 of Act No. 519 is divided into seven clauses, separated by semicolons. Each clause
    enumerates a certain class of persons who, within the meaning of this statute, are to
    be considered as vagrants.

    "(1) Every person having no apparent means of subsistence, who has the physical ability to
    work, and who neglects to apply himself or herself to some lawful calling; (2) every person found
    loitering about saloons or dram shops or gambling houses, or tramping or straying through the
    country without visible means of support; ….”

    Issue: W/N “without visible means of support” apply to “every person found loitering about
    saloons or dram shops”

    Ruling:

    In the case at bar, all three of the defendants were earning a living by legitimate methods in a
    degree of comfort higher that the average. Their sole offense was gambling, which the
    legislature deemed advisable to make the subject of a penal law. The games in which they
    participated were apparently played openly, in a licensed public saloon, where the officers of
    the law could have entered as easily as did the patrons. It is believed that Act No. 1775 is
    adequate, if enforced, to supress the gambling proclivities of any person making a good living
    at a lawful trade or business.

    For these reasons, the defendants are acquitted, with the costs de oficio.

    Statutory Construction:

     When the meaning of legislative enactments in question, it is the duty of the courts to
    ascertain, if possible, the true legislative intention, and adopt that the construction of the
    statute which will give it effect.
     The Construction finally adopted should be based upon something more substantial than
    the mere punctuation found in the printed Act.
     If the punctuation of the statute gives it a meaning which is reasonable and in apparent
    accord with the legislative will, it may be used as an additional argument for adopting
    the literal meaning of the words of the stature as thus punctuated.
     But an argument based upon punctuation alone is not conclusive, and the courts will not
    hesitate to change the punctuation when necessary, to give the Act the effect
    intended.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy