Narrative Opinion Summary
Probable jurisdiction is acknowledged regarding the appeal of all appellants from the Supreme Court's judgment affirming the conviction on the third count of the information. Jesse Cantwell's appeal concerning the fifth count is dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction. Under Section 237(a) of the Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of February 13, 1925, the documents related to Cantwell's appeal are treated as a petition for a writ of certiorari, which is granted. Legal representation includes Joseph F. Rutherford and Hayden C. Covington for the appellants, and William L. Hadden, Edwin S. Pickett, Francis A. Pallotti (Attorney General of Connecticut), Richard F. Corkey (Assistant Attorney General), and Luke H. Stapleton for the appellee.
Legal Issues Addressed
Dismissal of Appeal for Lack of Jurisdictionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Jesse Cantwell's appeal on a particular count is dismissed due to the Court's lack of jurisdiction over the matter.
Reasoning: Jesse Cantwell's appeal concerning the fifth count is dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction in Appealssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Supreme Court acknowledges probable jurisdiction over the appeal of all appellants concerning a specific conviction count.
Reasoning: Probable jurisdiction is acknowledged regarding the appeal of all appellants from the Supreme Court's judgment affirming the conviction on the third count of the information.
Legal Representation in Appealssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The case involves specific legal representatives for both appellants and appellees, highlighting the attorneys involved.
Reasoning: Legal representation includes Joseph F. Rutherford and Hayden C. Covington for the appellants, and William L. Hadden, Edwin S. Pickett, Francis A. Pallotti (Attorney General of Connecticut), Richard F. Corkey (Assistant Attorney General), and Luke H. Stapleton for the appellee.
Treatment of Documents as Petition for Writ of Certiorarisubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Cantwell's appeal documents are treated as a petition for a writ of certiorari, which is granted by the Court.
Reasoning: Under Section 237(a) of the Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of February 13, 1925, the documents related to Cantwell's appeal are treated as a petition for a writ of certiorari, which is granted.