Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
McCONLOGUE v. ADERHOLD, Warden, 1932 — 56 F.2d 152 · caselaw · US
General
McCONLOGUE v. ADERHOLD, Warden
56 F.2d 152·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·1932
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
McCONLOGUE v. ADERHOLD, Warden.
No. 6451.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 20, 1932.
Neil McConlogue, of Atlanta, Ga., in pro. per.
Clint W. Hager, U. S. Atty., and Hal Lindsay, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.
Before BRYAN, FOSTER, and WALKER, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
McConlogue was convicted upon an indictment in two counts, the first of which charged him with forging, and the second with uttering, the same hank cheek. He was sentenced to serve five years on the first count, and three years on the second count, in the Atlanta penitentiary; the sentences to run consecutively. After serving five years he sued out a writ of habeas corpus to procure his release on the theory that he was charged with only one offense. This appeal was taken from an order of the District Court discharging the writ and remanding him to custody.
While there is some conflict in the authorities, in our opinion the better view is that forgery and uttering forgery are not one and the same offense, but are two separate and distinct offenses. Read v. United States, 55 App. D. C. 43, 299 F. 918; 2 Bishop’s Cr. Law, § 1066(1).
The judgment is affirmed.