UNITED STATES V. DIXON.
(Dl8trlct Vourt, N. D. California. December 11, tROO.)
FEDERAL COURTS-WA.SHINGTON DISTRICT COURT-GRAND JURY.
Act Congo April 5, 1890, entitled" An act to provide for the time and place to hold terms of the United States courts in the state of Washington) " provides that "the state of Washington shall constitute one judicial district" uniformly refers to the court as the "district court for the district of Washington," and t though "for the purpose of holding terms by the district court," the district is aivided into four specified "divisions," known as "Northern," "Southern," "Eastern," and "Western," the provisions respecting the times and places of holding court refer in terms "to civil snits not of a local character, "and no mention is made of criminal offenses." Beld, that under Const. U. S. Amend. 6, providing that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall be tried by a jury of the" state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed," an indictment purporting to have been found "by the grand jurol'S of the United States 01 America for the northern diVision of the district of Washington, sworn * * * to inquire of all offenses * * * committed within the northern division of the district of Washington, "was void, as the state constitutes but one district, and the jury must be drawll from and have power to inquire into offenses in the whole thereof.
At Law. Oharles A. Garter, U. S. Atty. WiUiam Hoff Cook, for defendant.
HOFFMAN, J., (oraUy.) The defendant having been committed hythe commissioner to answer for an offense triable in the distriet of Washington, application is now made for the usual ordtlr of removal to the district where his offense is justiceable. The only evidence tending to show his guilt was a certified copy of an indictment found against him. It purports to have been found "by the grand jurors of the United States of America for the northern division of the district of Waehington, sworn and charged to inquire of all offenses against the laws of the United States, committed within the northern divisionof the district of Washington." It was evidently considered by the pleader that grand jurors should be summoned in and for the body of each of the divisione: of the district of Washington which are mentioned in the act of April 5, 1890, and that their inquiries into offenses against the laws of the United States should be limited to ofl"enses committed within the division of the district from which they are snmmoned. This method of procedure was evidently supposed to be authorized, if not required, by the third section of the act of April 5, 1890. That act is entitled" An act to provide for the time and place to hold terms of the United States courts in the state of Washington." The third section provides "that for the purpose of holding terms by the district court said district shall be divided into four divisions, to be known as the' Eastern,' 'Southern,' 'Northern,' and 'Westl'rn' divisions. I " It then proceeds to designate the counties of the state which shall constitute each division. On recurring to the other provisions of the act, it will be seen that the intention of congress was to
lThe western division is called the" Western District," evidently a misprint or clerical error.
constitute one district. The first section provides that ,((the state of Washington shall constitute one judicial district." The sixth section provides that the terms. of the district court ((for the district of Washington" shall be held at four different places mentioned in the section, and specifies the times of holding those terms. One clerk is appointed for court "fpr the district of Washington," and for the circuit the court for ,the same district. But in order to carry out the provisions respecting the,times and places of holding those courts in the "divisions" mentioned in the act each clerk is required to appoint a deputy, who shall rel:\ide ill the division of the district in which such clerk shall not himselheside, each of whom shall,in the absence of the clerk, exercise ,all and perform all the duties, of the clerk ,within the division for which he shall be appointed. The phrase "District Court for Division of the State of Washington" ri.()wqere ,occurs in the act··', The court is uniformly named a "District District of Washington," aiid thepersoil clel:k: fortheqi,&trict pfW:ashington acts in the subdivisions of the district by deputy. The terms of the court are described as the terms of the district court, not for the northern or other division of the district of Washingt()n, but fortha district of the state of Washington. ,1.'he provisions 4, respecting the places and times of holding court, refer, in the language of the section, "to civil suits not of a local oharacter." No mention is mada of criminal offenses. n might seem that the averment in the indictment that the grand jury has been ,clllied and summoned for the northern diVision of the district, of Washirigton may bfl considered a technical or verbal error; but this view 1 cOllfMer wholly untenable. From the organiZation of the g6vernillElUt, the 1;rnited States were divided intO cial districts, for each of which a district judge was appointed, and circuits were established comprising several districts in which circuit courts were ,held in and for each' district composing the circuit. The sixth amendment to theeonstitution pro.vides" that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and distri<;t 'wherein the crime shall have been , committed, which district shall have)een previously ascertained by hiw." It has been shown that the state of W:ashington, by the terms oftha act, constitutes put one judiclul district. ''rhe right of the accused to be tried by a jury of that distriCt would see'm to be incontrovertible, nor can we suppose that congress intended to pass a law restricting that right,und thus ill violation of the constitution." ,The object of the section relied on is apparent.. H was merely to regulate the times an<lplaces for holding the district court for the district of,Washington for of civil cases, but in criminal prosecutions a be the whole district, and n()t from any division of 'it. 'The limitation of the power of the grand jury to inquire only into,ollthrsescommitted within the division of the di&trict for whichtbey arepalle'd would seem wholly without authority, nor would it be' practicable." In' all cases where' crimes' have been committed. on board of on the high seas, it could not oe: that 'the crime was 'committed within the district or any
PEOPLE'S NAT. BANK V. EPSTIN.
division thereof. The jurisdiction attaches "to the first district or circuit court in and for the district in which offender shan be found; or into which he is first brought," (Rev. St. § 730,) and the jury, to indict or try such an offender, must be drawn from the whole body of the district. I am therefore of opinion that the indictment, a ctlrtified copy of which was preRented to the commissioner, is invalid, and purports on its face to be found by a body of men not known to or authorized by law. It there10re must be treated as a nullity.
PEOPI,E'a NAT. BANK OF CHARLESTON 'IJ. EpsTIN
(Circuit Court" D. South CaroZina. November 14, 1890.)
In Equity. On bill to foreclose mortgage. Samuel W. Meltnn and .[ohn Wingate, for complainant. J. N. Nctthana, for defendants. BOND, J. This bill was filed by the People's National Bank of Charleston, S. C., against David Epstin and Isabella Epstin, his wife, citizens of the of Tennessee, to foreclose a mortgage given by the wife on her separate and individual property, to secure a loan made by the complainant to Isabella Epstin, amounting to $3,200, with interest from the 14th day ofDecember, 18&6. The answer ofthedefendantlsabellaEpstin, the husband having died, admits the making of the deed of mortgage set out in the bill upon her own separate estate described therein; but she alleges that at the time of the making thereof her husbllnu and codefendant, David Epstin, was indebted to the complninant in the sum of $1,3.')7.05 on a protested bill of exchange, dated the 21st day of May, 1886, drawn by David Epstin on Philip Epstin, in favor of one Kirk Robinson, and indorsed by him to complainant, and that her said husband was likewise indebted to the Ccntral National Bank of Columbia on the 14th of June, 1886, in the sum of $1,193.85, upon a draft drawn by David Epstin on Philip Epstin, in favor of Kirk Robinson, and indorsed by Robinson to said Central National Bank of Columbia. The answer alleges that the indebtedness and the method of it were known to complainant. A part of the sum of money obtained from the complainant bank was applied to the payment of an antecedent mortgage, created