News

Garber Announces Advisory Committee for Harvard Law School Dean Search

News

First Harvard Prize Book in Kosovo Established by Harvard Alumni

News

Ryan Murdock ’25 Remembered as Dedicated Advocate and Caring Friend

News

Harvard Faculty Appeal Temporary Suspensions From Widener Library

News

Man Who Managed Clients for High-End Cambridge Brothel Network Pleads Guilty

SANFORD CLUB IS WINNER IN AMES CUP COMPETITION

Question Before Court Concerned Immigrant's Right to Stay in This Country

NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED

Arguing before a capacity audience of students and professors the Sanford Club defeated the Price Powell Club in the final debate of the Ames Competition last night in Langdell Hall

H. P. Carter 3L. and J. C. Toaz 3L, representing the Sanford Club, won over C. G. Heimerdinger 3L, and M. E. Purnell 3L, representing the Bryce-Powell Club. The winning club was the respondent in the case upholding the defense

The judges who were chosen to try the case were the Honorable C. W. Pound of the New York Court of Appeals, who acted as Chief Justice, the Honorable D. E. Campbell of the Supreme Court of South Dakota, and W. J. McCoy '82, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.

The winners of the competition hold one of the highest honors in the Law School. Last year the Scott Club was the victorious club in the contest. In the past seven arguments the Scott Club has been the winner of four of the competitions.

Four points were considered as the basis of the decision. The preparation of the brief, the authorities quoted in the brief, the ability to answer the questions, and the presentation of the argument.

The case was the final hearing and determination upon the writ of habeas corpus. The keeper of the jail of Amesburgh is ordered to have before the court the body of John B. Nemo, who has been detained and confined in the common jail of the city of Amesburgh by virtue of an order of deportation and commitment pending arrangements for deportation made by Vincent Cummings Esq., Commissioner of Immigration.

The attorneys for the petitioner argued that the order of the Commissioner was vold and the commitment and detention of the petitioner was unlawful for several reasons.

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Tags