In re In ,.e
(CirouU Coort, E. D. Tennessee. December 6, 1889.)
H.1BEAS CORPUS-CoNVICTION JlEIIORE UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER.
Upon an application for a writ of habeas corpus by one jailed, in :.default of bail, upon a conviction before a United States commissioner, .under a warrant charging counterfeiting the coin of the United States, the court will not inquh'einto the merits of the decision of the commissioner, but only as to whether an offense is charged, .and whether the commissioner has power inquire into and adjudge the com·
Application of George Morris for habeas C01pua. W. H. Harbison, for petitioner. H. ·M.Wiltae,Asst. U.S. Dist. Atty.
KEY, J. The has presented his application for a writ of :habea.a CorpU8. He that he Wll-S 'arrested ulldera: warrant issued 'by a commissioner of this court in which he is charged with counterfeitingthecoin of,the UnitedStatesj that he was tried befote the commissioner, and found guilty; and, failing to give bond, was cbmmittedto jailto awaitttialat the next term of the court. His not insisted tha.t the offense chargecl is not 8 crime against the United States, or that the commissioner had no authority to hear the case. The petition alleges that the proof the commissibrier was insufficient io justify tHe judgment rendered j that it fails to show probable cause of the petitioner's guilt. "The case is of considerable importance, not only to the petitioner "and thosesimila.rly situated, but to the government. There are several ·hundred criminal offenses tried intihe federal courts of the eastern and middle districts of Tennessee in every year, and four-fifths of them, I pre. same, are commenced before commissioners of the courts. If it be the , duty ofthe court or judge to grant and hear applications for writs ofha'beaa corpua upon the ground ofthecharacter or weight ofthe proof upon "' which the cotDtnissioners act in the'Secases,therewill he scope and opportunity for an extensive business and great expenditure of the publio money in this field of operations. But if the law imposes such a duty, or gives such a right, it must be met and enforced. Procel'<1ingson habeaa CO'l-pU8 in the federal courts are not governed by state legislation, but must conform to common-law rules. Ex parte Kaine, 3 Blatchf. 1. 'We must look to the common law, to the legislation of congress, and the decisions of the federal courts for the principles which should control the determination of this case. There is not absolute uniformity in the decisions of the circuit and district courts in regard to these principles, as applicable to the case under consideration. In Re Stupp, 12 Blatchf. 507, it was held that the court issuing the writ will not retry the case, but will inquire into the jurisdiction and the regularity of the ings. In Ex parte Parka, 14 Alb. Law J. 339, it was said that it is only when the proceedings below are entirely void that the prisoner is entitled
IS BE MORRIS.
to a discharge. Ex parte Shajfenburg, 4 Dill. 271, decides that a decision of a court of competent jurisdiction cannot Qe.questioned for errOl upon habeas corpus. In Ex parte Van Arernam, 3 Blatchf. 160, it was held that, in proceedings under habeas corpu"s, the court will not inquire into the merits of a decision of the committing magistrate. It will only inquire whether the prisoner was charged with a criminal offense, and whether the magistrate has power to inquire into and adjudge upon the complaint. The decisions or principle are supported .1;ly the authority of adjudications of the supreme court of the United States. Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371; Ex parte CarU, 106 U. S. 521, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 535; Ex parte Parks, 93 U. S. 18. These principles, when applied to the case in hand, lead to the conClusion that the petition, on its face, fails to state facts sufficient to authorize the issuance of the writ, and should be dismissed. If, however, this were not so, I should feel b\>und to reach the conclusion that the writ should be dismissed upon the proof made before the commissioner. This proof shows that the petitioner was at a blacksmith shop when moulds were being made for making counterfeit money. That Colbert Kerley, about Christmas or New 1888-89, was in the night-time,making counterfeit money, at petitioner's house, and that the petitioner held a light for him. That, after a few dollars were made, petitioner said that he would not have any more of it made.about his house. Petitioner had some of the money in his hand looking at it; and that Kerley had been seen at his house several times. I cannot say that the opinion of the commissioner in' holding that probable cause was shown, and that he should be held to answer, is erronj:lOus. But one of the witnesses .examined before the rommissioner, and whose testimony was reduced to writing, and signed by the witness, and who is charged with engaging in the same offense, is brought before the court, and states that the language of his written statement is somewhat erroneous, he thinks. He now thinks that he (said petitioner) might have held the light; that he does not remember positively that he held it. If this change were made in his statement of his I am not prepared to say that it would change the commissioner's conclusion, or ought to. do so.. I do not believe that this supplemental or modified statement can now be entertained. My conclusion is that the petition and writ should be dismissed, and the petitioner remanded to jail, .unless he gives bond and surety for his appearance, as required by the commissioner, and it is so ordered. In Re Ci8IJon the same result is reached and the same order made.
(Oircuit Oourt. D. Indiana. December 24,lt!89.) _
'XhllclllBims of letters No. 219,2Qll,lseued September 2, 1879, to Charlee F. Bru"h', for improvement 'iii electric lamp8,-consisting of two or more paire of car· bonstinco.mb.ination wit.hmeCh ..anism t.o sepaltate. such pairs suc.cessivelYand inde· . pendently, eo that the light will :be established between but one pair at a time,. the other pairs are.maintai,ned in a separated relation, and 110 that when their ." members'are in contact,thecurrent .may pass freely through a1l8aid pairs alike, as shown in the speoifioations, are valid, not being for mere functions, or results, but being limif,e'd to the meanS or its equivalent. SA.MB,. '''. <' .': . . ' ) ! .... . ' . . ·::i; :rheelaims of said patent for the lifter and olampsWhich move theCarhons."subthe pnntose shown," i8 fQr,IlUch lifter and clamps in combina· , "tion With the other mechanism described in the>epecifications, and is valid. as to cause two pairs of carbon.$ to be stlC(l6ssively separated in identically the same way as theBrush lamp, though the inlrlligitlg device uses & clamp, instead of a ring clamp, to hold the oarbon., ,. , Letters patent No. t4'1','821, 'February24, 1874; to 'Matthias Day,Jr.,for an :eleotrio,lamp in which eaehelirbon Is split vertically for a from the 0'11. ..' but. is so ..' acted at the clamP. end as solely as a pairot Separate 'oarbonli, and tlbt· a's twb 'or more independent palrlJ at carbons, is not an 'antioip&t1on of the-invention: described in 8ald Brush patent. Where a patentee certain mechanism In his specification8, and then de. elates that he does not lim.it 'hl'mself to such mechanism, or its equivalent\ but reo bis claim to the "sli\bstllntWJ,ly all not the broad language of the in order, to validate his patent, SlUce the scope Of ttie· patent is meastited·· by 'the termeot the claim. and· the general state. ment 8Urplusage.
.. ' . " '.' .,' . .
Sp.id patent is. infringed by ,,·lamp so
' ·. ,
M. D. de iInL.LeggefJ,and A. St'!Jfl1UJU1', for complainant. R. S. 2b.ylor, for defendants.
GRESHAM, J. This suips' brought for alleged infringement of letters patent No. 219,208, granted to CharlesF.Brush,8eptember 2, 1879, for improvement in double/carbon electric lamps of the arc type. Brush assigned the patent to complainant before suit was brought· 'When two ordinary, pOinted, carbon sticks are iiI don'tact in an tric circuit, the circuit and the current 'freely passes through the carbons, without'the of heat or light at the point of contact. If, however, while the electric current is passing through them, the carbons ilre slightly separated, the current will continue to flow, and in crossing or leaping the small space intense heat and light will be produced. This is known as the electric arc lamp, and the one generally used for illuminating large buildings and halls, and for lighting streets. The incandescent electric light is produced by causing a current of electricity to paes through a filament in a glass bulb, from which the air has been exhausted. In its passage the current encounters great resistance, and, as a consequence, the filament is heated