Filed: Mar. 01, 1801
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 4 U.S. 225 (_) 4 Dall. 225 Commonwealth versus Addison. Supreme Court of United States. In support of the motion, the attorney-general. But, by the COURT: We are, unanimously, of opinion, that the case does not present to our consideration an indictable offence; and, of course, it is not a case, in which an information ought to be granted. But we are (with the same unanimity) of opinion, that every judge has a right, and, emphatically, that it is his duty, to deliver his sentiments upon every su
Summary: 4 U.S. 225 (_) 4 Dall. 225 Commonwealth versus Addison. Supreme Court of United States. In support of the motion, the attorney-general. But, by the COURT: We are, unanimously, of opinion, that the case does not present to our consideration an indictable offence; and, of course, it is not a case, in which an information ought to be granted. But we are (with the same unanimity) of opinion, that every judge has a right, and, emphatically, that it is his duty, to deliver his sentiments upon every sub..
More
4 U.S. 225 (____)
4 Dall. 225
Commonwealth
versus
Addison.
Supreme Court of United States.
In support of the motion, the attorney-general.
But, by the COURT:
We are, unanimously, of opinion, that the case does not present to our consideration an indictable offence; and, of course, it is not a case, in which an information ought to be granted. But we are (with the same unanimity) of opinion, that every judge has a right, and, emphatically, that it is his duty, to deliver his sentiments upon every subject that occurs in Court. We add, so far as the expression of our sense of decorum may have weight, that we think, it would be indecent and improper, in any presiding judge, to attempt to prevent his associates from the exercise of this right; from the performance of this duty.
Motion refused.
