270:: kept. Section the duties sqpervillof, says he" shall prepare and all necessary books, , fo'TInS, blanks, and instructions for the use and direc,tion of the super-, visors of election. * * * He shall require of the supervisors of election, when necessary, lists of the persons who may register and vote, or either, in their respective election districts or voting precincts," etc. Section 5521 provides thatsupervillof:;; Who have taken the oath of office, and refuse or neglect to discharge its duties, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than 6 months 'n61' niore than 12, or a fine of not less than $2,0.0 nor more than $500, or by both, and to pay the costs of, prosecution. Section 2031, providing for their pay, says: "And there shalL oofallowedandpaid to each supervisor ofelection and each and performs his duty under Special deputy-marshal who the prece<ling at the rate of five dollars per day for each day he is actually on duty, not exceeding ten days." These oftpe law, so far as I am aware, prescribing the appointment, duties, and pay of supervisors. They are appointed by the court, they receive all instructions as to their duty from the,omefsupervisor, and their payis,absolutely,fixed,by law. To deny the petitioner's prayer is simply to nullify section 2026, which prescribed his duty; or section'2031, prescribing his pay.' It is admitted that the circular of the attorney general was not sent to the chief supervisor, who is not an officer of his department, but was sent to the mars.hal. The mai'shal hasno right to give any instructions to the supervisors, and in fact never did give any. The chief supervisor did gh:e such instructiona, lUl it was his duty underthelaw'togivc; and the supervisors obeyed those instructions; as it was their duty to do under heavy pains and penalties, for failure or neglect. The letter of the president referred to in the circular of the attorney general doe'S not appear in the papers, and the court cannot inferthnt it directed or justified a plain nullification of a statute of the United States. I will sign a decree allowing the petitioner the number of pel.fdiems claimed in his petition.
(D18trict Oourt,iJJ.D. Virginia. March 12, 1888.)
OLERXOll'COURT-U. S. CmcUIT COURT-FEEB--REV. ST. U. So §§2011-2014.
'Under, n,v.StU. S. providing for the opening the circuit no, 10 days prior to It for elect.ion or prior to 'election fat memba): of congress. and can tInUIng court un til the' day followmg the election, and· 'sectioil 828,' allowing the clerk five dollars for attendance upon the court while actually in session.-the clerk is, entitled to such fee for, every day the court ill in sea'sion, under those sections, and forMs record of its " ,." , '
lAmnned by the chiQnit court, May:21,1888. No opinion.' ;;
PLF;ASANTS II. UNITEDSTATEB.
The district court has jurisdiction of a petition by the clerk of the circuit court for compensation'for attendance thereon." '
On Petition under Act of March 3,1887. McLain Pleasants, for petitioner. J. O. Gihson, U. S. Diat. Atty., for the United States.
J. The facts'Set forth in the complainant's petition in case, are not contradicted, and I ,find them to be ·as follows:· Thecom'. plainant is the clerk of the circuit court of the, United States for the East'Th.at',court was direCted by a written order of ,thiil, district judge, under a designation from the circuit judge, to be opened of August, 1886; upto and includlpg the 3d day of No; vemper, 1886, "for the transaction of all business under the act ,of;congress entitled' An act to amend an act approved May 31,J870, entitled'''An,act to enforcethe rights of citizens of the United States to , $everal states of this Union, and for other purposes,))' ap.proved February 8, 1871, and thcnct amendatory thereto,approvedJune l(),' 1872.'" The court 'Was as directed, and the, was ,'present on each and every day in person. On presenting his aMount to the r auditing officers of the treasury, for attendance on court 68 clays, he was allowed eompensatiqn for 89 days, on which other businesS was transacted than such as is contemplated by the aforeEiaid act ()f congress. OfAhe remaining 29 days, he 'was allowed 12 perdierrw for attendange on ,tM court "sitting as a supervising court," and disallowed 17 ,The'complainant claims the fee allowed by law for attendance on those days,and .for entering the orders opening and adjourning the court on, those days. The Jaw applicable to these facts is found in section 2011, ReV'. St.· U. S. which provides that whenever a judge of a United States. Circuit c6urt isinform,ed by two more citizens that lj. supervision of "UatiorifO:J;,or election of; ,8. of congress is desired i , that judge shall cause his court to be opened not less than 10 days before the registration,'or, if no registration be required, within notlees thau'lOdays prior to the election. Section 2012 provides that when the court is s? , ,opened it proceed to appoint snpervisorsofelection, anq. to revoke 'appointments from time to time. Section 2013 vides that the court so opened shalltherefrom and thereafter be always open for the transaction of business under this title up to and including the 'qay followiug the election. Section 2014 authorizes the circuitj,udge 1;<);' delegate one of the district judges in his circuit to perform his duties under this title. Section 828 provides a fee to of five dollars' per day for attendance on the court while actually in session. From this statement of the law and the facts of this case I consider '1;haUhe clerk is clearly entitl(l(i to his fee for' attendance on the court when so opened, and for his record of its proceedings; And iiJ'gQf,opin,ion that it has jurisdiction of the case, doth overrule 'the plea .and·demurrerof the defendants filed therein, and will sign 8! decree for tHe amount claimed. ' , ,
(Oircuit Oourt, No D. California. May 21.1888
Hinz, accused as an accomplice in crime, upon a promise of immuI!ity if he would testify truly before the grand and trial juries, and thereby aid in the indictment and conviction of bis co-conspirators, testified fully before the grand jury. and upon his testilpony a joint indictment was found against his as'sociates in crime arid himself.. After a trial jury had been impaneled to try three of the parties, to whom a separate trial had been granted, Hinz informed the prose.cuting attorney of his determination to so change his testimony as .to partiell ,and thereby.' it impossible. to conl'lct'tbem upon testImony tlien aVRllable; and, upon bemgthreatened WIth a prosecution for perjury, if his testimony should be so changed, he refused to testify at all, and the prosecuting attorney was then constrained to make. and did make, an arrangement with another accomplice to testify upon similu ierms. who, having- testified, was discharg-ed and a nolo pros. as to him entered. Hinz wanhereupon arrested, and held to answer to the indictment. , Afterthl;l,9ther testimony of the prosecutiiln and of the defense was all in, . ,.Hinzoffered! and anx.:ious.. to te.stify in rebuttal,. nis offer was declined. ,Heidi that Hmz,by refusmg to testIfy before the trIal Jury, as he had agreed ,to do, ,notwithstanding his testifying' before thegrsltd jury, had forfeited all righ,L,to imm).lnity or clemency. and subjected himself totrial and conviction; and the, Gourt"refused'to continue the case in order to allow him an opportunity' to' apply' to the president fora pardon before conviction.
CRIMINAL UNITED STATES EVIDENCE-RIGHT 'l'0 IMMUNITy-FORFEITURE BY BAD FAITH.
SAME'-DrSCRETIoN OF C O U R T . '
S:: SAM'E. .
, Whetb;er ll,n sc.complice already indicted shall. upon promise of immunity. be sdmittedas a ,witness for the.government "'l' not, is determined by the judges iu their dlscret'ion, as maY best serve the purposes of justice.
, munity appears to have been the principal offender, he should be rejected.
If the accomplice offering himselras a witness with the expectation or im-
If an accomplice, haYing made a private conression, upon a promise of pardon by the attorney general, should afterwards refuse to testify. or in bad faith testify falsely, he may be Cl>IlYictedupon the eYidence of that confession.
SAME-ACCOMPLIC: TESTIMONY-CORHOBORATWN. "
The court will ad,viseajury not to convict of felony upon. the testimony of an s<;c\lmplicealolle, without corroboration. 1 .
SAME. . .
to corroborate each other; but the same rule applies, and the same corrobo.rlttioll:is as if therewllre hut one. 1
or more accomplices are produced as witnesses, they are not deemed
.. ' Alth\lp,gh the prosecuting attorney has no authorIty, to contract that a per. . son convicted of crime shall not be' prosecu'ted, if. when examined asa witness against his accomplices"he declares, fully and fairly, his and their guilt, ,yet when he dDlls,so,under promise of immunity, and,his evide' ce is accepted by thtl colIrt, he is .equitablyentitled to immunity, and a recommendation for
the of the testimony of an accomplice, in order to 1!Ustain a conviction, and the extent of such corroboration, see People v. Elliott, (N. Y.)12 and note: People Y. ;Kunz, (Cal.) Pac. Itep. 836; Patterson v. COIIi.,(Ry.) 5 8. W. E,e"p. 387; PeoplE:' v, Clongh, (Cal.) 15 Pac. Rep. 5; Stlite v. Dana, 10 Atl., Rilp. 127i, Dodson v; 8tate, (Tex.) 6 S. W. Itep.548; Boyd Y. 8tate, Id.853; WIsdom 'l". feo.ple,. ((;010.) 17 PlJ,c. Rep. 519; Pool v. State, (Tex.) 88. W. Rep. 817; BUchannan v. State', Id.e65.' As to who is' an accomplice within the rule, see Sm,ith v. State, (Tex.) 5 S. W. Rep. 219, and note. ' . ..