REPORTER, vol. 44.
E'.l pam Graham, 3 Wash. C. C. 456, 462. Subpoonas are thus author- ' ized to the distance of 100 miles. Such contempts as fall within section 725 of the United States Revised Statutes are criminal offenses against the United States, (Fischer v. Hayes, ] 9 Blatchf. 13,6 Fed. Rep. 63; In re Pitman, 1 Curt. 186; New Orleans v. Stearn-Ship Co., 20 Wall. 387,) and must be unhesitatingly punished. The accused person may be reached by proceedings under section 1014 when found in anotherdistrict, and may be arrested there, and then transferred in the usual manner under that section; the proceedings there being based upon the writ of attachment previously issued by the court having jurisdiction of the cause. For all ordinary crimes there is no other means of reaching persons in other districts. No process issues from the judge or court of one district to the'marshal of another district. The transfer-is made pursuant to section 1014 only. Proceedings in extradition cases under section 5270 stand on a wholly different footing. In re Henrich, 5 Blatchf. 414, 421. I have not been referred to any United States statute or precedent that authorizes the process of the court in cases of contempt or of any ordinary criminal proceeding to run to the marshal of another district. In section 1014 the clause" or any state where he may be found," and the next following clause, are both of them qualifications and limitations applicable to all the magistrates previously named in that section. It was thus construed and applied in U. S. v. Case, 8 Blatchf. 250. The above view is in accordance with the decision of Judge WITHEY in the case of U. S. v. Jacobi, 4 Amer. Law T. R. 148, 151, where a similar question was examined at length. The warrant must be limited to the marshal of this district.
In re GoOCH.
(C<£rC'UU Court, D. Minnesota, Third. Divis£on. November 25,1890.)
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW":"INTERSTATE COMMEROE-OLEOMARGARINE-ORIGINA,I, PAOKAGES.
One who sells oleomargarine in the original package, as imported into the state from another state, is not subject to arrest under a law of the state in whicq the sale ocours entirely forbidding the sale of oleomargarine, as sUflh statute is ali unconstitutional interference with interstate commerce. Following LetB'II v. HWid.in, 135 U. S. 100, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 681.
Habeas Corpus. John B. &: W. H. Sanborn, for petitioner. W:D. Cornish, for the State. .
NEI;SON, J. The petition of Charles E. Gooch is presented"praying for a writ of habeas corpus to discharge him from an imprisonment alleged to be in violation of the constitution of the United States. The is-
NEW YORK & R. CEMENT CO. 'II. COPLAY .CEMENT CO.
sued, and proper steps were taken to bri,ng the legal questions befote the court. The petitioner is the agent of Armour & Co. of Chicago, manufacturers of oleomargarine, in the state of Illinois, and he was arrested under a warrant issued by a justice of the peace, being charged with selling oleomargarine in violation of the laws of the state of Minnesota, and at the hearing was committed on failure to pay a fine imposed of $100. The conceded facts before this court are that he sold as agent, in the original package, oleomargarine, stamped and put up in accordance with the laws of the United States, and which had been imported. into the state of Minnesota from Illinois by the owner and manufacturers, who were citizens and residents of the latter state. The law of the state of Minnesota forbids the sale of oleomargarine in the state of Minnesota, whether manufactured in this or any other state, and makes no distinction between the importer who sells in the original package, as imported, and one who sells it when the package is broken up. The questions presented in this case were fuUy considered and decided by the United States supreme court in Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 100, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 681,and that court decided, in brief, that Commerce among the several states was subject only to the regulations imposed by congress, and that the states could not interfere with or regulate such commerce; and, further, that the right to transport an article of commerce from one state to another included the right to sell in the unbroken imported packages at the place where the transit terminated. The petitioner then, under the uncontradicted facts, is guilty of no offense in selling the oleomargarine in the original. package, and his arrest and imprisonment for doing so is illegal, and in violation of the constitution of the United States. The prisoner is entitled to his discharge, and it is so ordered.
CEMENT CO. 'II. COPLAY CEMENT CO.
(Oircuit Oourt, E. D. Pennsywania. October ll, 1800.)
'l'RADE-MARKS-INJ'RINGEMENT-INJUNCTION. A suit to restrain the use of the name" Rosendale Cement" in the denomination of cement manufactured and sold by defendants, cannot be maintained, though such name is known by the pnblic to lDean cement made in Rosendale, and defendants' manufactory is in another state, unless it be shown that oomplainants have an exclusive ownership or property therein. It is not sufficient that they, in common with certain other persons, have a right to use it, and the public lDay be deceived by defendants' use of the nalDe.
In Equity. . The defenda:llts manufactured and sold cement, which they denominated and put upon the market as "Anchor Rosendale Cement," though made in Lehigh county, Pa., from stone quarried there. The complainants manufacture cement in the town of Rosendale, in the state of New York,,,,here there are extem'ive quarries of cement rock, which are worked by some 15 ·or 20 different parties. Some of these. Roshaye been worked for over half a. centqry,..but the