BLODGI';TT, J., (orally.) This is an attachment suit, the plaintiffs be:,ingcitizeris of Illinois, and thedefendant& citizens of Connecticut. The ,'8U.itwas commenced against the defendant as a non-resident of this state, 'under the: attachment laws of Illinois; an attachment writ issued and served by summoning certain persons as garnishees. One Merwin inand claims to be the owner of, and entitled to, the proceeds ot1 the indebtedness garnished, on the ground that he is the voluntary assignea;of Wheeler & Co., the attachment debtors, who reside and do business in the state of Connecticut. Wheeler &- Co. made a voluntary assignment, under which Merwin is the acting assignee, for the benefit of their creditors, and Merwin sets up a superior right and claim as such assignee to the assets attached. I am satisfied that the law in this case was properly stated by the supreme court of Illinois in Heyer v. Alexander, 108 Ill. 385, where it is stated, in substance, as the true rule, that a voluntary assignee under the laws of another state will not be allowed to take the property of the assignor fOlliid in this state, as against a creditor of the assignor resident in this state who has brought an attachment for the purpose of reaching of such non-resident debtor. In other words, that each state, being a separate and independent sovereignty, will see to it that its own citizens are protected in the collection of their debts against non-resident debtors, so·far as the assets of such debtors are within the jurisdiction of the state. 'There have been some later decisions by the supreme court of Illinois, but I do not think they disturb the principle upon which Heyer v. Alexander was decided. The demurrer to the interpleader is sustained, and the interpleader .dismissed.
In, re Extradition of LUDWIG.
(Olrcuit Oourt, 8. D. NetD York.
EXTRADITION-AnJOUlmMENT OF HEARING.
It is within the discretion of the commissioner to adjourn the heaTing of extradition proceedings on motion of the sovereignty making the demand for the accused, and the prisoner is not entitled to be discharged from custody on habeas corpu8 on the ground that the adjournment is unreasonably long. unless it is made to appear that the commissioner has abused his discretion,
On. Habeas Corpus. Robert Wa#e, for Ludwig. Solomon &- Dulon, for the German government. LACOMBE, J. The first question raised in this case is whether the adjournment of the hearing granted by the commissioner was unreasonable. That his power to grant adjournments at the request of eitper party is unquestionable was held iuRe Macdonnell, UBlatchf. 100; It is said . in that case that "the commissioner must exercise ajust and reasonable
UNITED S';l.'ATES V. CARROLL.
discretion on that subject," and that it is only when such discretion is abused that the courts will afford relief. While the adjournment in the case at bar was :undoubtedly extremely liberal, I am not prepared i.o say that it was unreasonable, especially in view of what the papers before the commissioner showed as to the character of the evidence which might be expected on the adjourned day. It is unnecessary to consider the other points raised upon the argument, as the first one is controlling of this application. The prisoner may be' remanded to the custody of the marshal till the hearing is closed, without prejudice to a renewal of the application for discharge, should the German government not close its case on September 27th.
UNITED STATES V. CARROLL.
(Diltriot Gowrt, E. D. MU8ouri, E. D., November 21, 1887.)
Rev. St. U. S. § 5512, provides for the punishment of any registration officer who" doeR any act unauthorized bylaw relating to 01' affeoting the regiBt1'ation... and its last clause provides for the punishment of any person who "aida, ooun8els, fYl'0cure8, 01' ad'DUiea any * ** officer.to do any aot" therein made. a crime. In Missouri, a registration officer is not authorized to write a person's name on the registration book unless he applies .for registration, and takes a certain oath. An indictment against defendant alleged that an indictment against one M. for writing names of persons on the registration book, who had not applied for registration or been sworn, had been found, and that M. had been tried and convicted thereon, and that defendant had aided, counseled, and procured said M. to do the act in question. Held, that the offenses described in the section are. misdemeanors, and that the advising an officer of registration to do an unauthorized act is a substantive and Dot an accessorial offense, and the indictment should allege what specific offense the officer of registration committed, and that the defendant advised and' procured him to do it.
On Demurrer to Testimony. Thomas J. Molloy WI;J,S indicted and tried in the circuit court of the United States for the Eastern district of Missouri, under section 5512, Rev. St. U. S., for doing an act unauthorized by law, to-wit,writing the names of persons in the registration book in his custody who had not applied for registration, or taken the oath required by law. Vide 31 Fed. Rep. 19. Subsequently James Carroll was indicted under the.]ast clause of section 5512, for "counseling, procuring, and advising" said Molloy to do the act for which he had been tried and convicted. On the trial of the .latter indictment, after a jury had been called and sworn, defendant's counsel interposed an objection to the admission of any testimony, because the indictment was bad in that it did not show that Molloy had done any specific acts which amounted to an. offense, at the instigation ,of the defendant. ,Tk08. P. Bashaw, Dist. Atty., and D. P. Dyer, for the Government. Chater Krunnand Wm·. a. Ma.,rihaU, for