Hartranft v. Mullowny

Background

A man charged under the Food and Drugs Act in the police court of the District of Columbia objected that the police court lacked jurisdiction and that the accusation did not properly inform him of the charges. He asked the supreme court of the District to issue a writ of certiorari to bring the police-court record up for review. The supreme court quashed the certiorari and remanded the record, the court of appeals affirmed, and the defendant then sought review here by writ of error.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the Supreme Court could hear the writ of error under §250 of the Judicial Code. The Court concluded it could not. The certiorari in the District was a method of removing the pending criminal record for supervision, not a separate, independent case. Because the matter involved a criminal prosecution still requiring further proceedings in the police court, the judgment affirming the quashal of certiorari was not a final judgment under §250, and the Supreme Court therefore lacks authority to review it now.

Real world impact

The decision means that a pretrial request to transfer or review a criminal record does not produce a final judgment that the Supreme Court can review under §250. Defendants must generally await final outcomes in the trial court before seeking Supreme Court review under that statute. The ruling is procedural and does not decide the underlying guilt or innocence in the Food and Drugs Act case; further trial proceedings in the police court remain necessary.