Summary
In Hunt, the court was concerned with a statute dealing with "crimes against the elective franchise" which provided that any offender might be compelled to give testimony against others, but that he would not then be subject to indictment, prosecution or punishment for the crime to which his testimony related.
Summary of this case from Matter of Jaime TOpinion
Argued October 5, 1909
Decided October 19, 1909
David H. Hunt for appellant.
Francis A. Winslow and Frederick E. Weeks for respondent.
Order affirmed; no opinion.
Concur: CULLEN, Ch. J., EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK and CHASE, JJ.