together. It may have been intended to induce importers to employ to that extent the labor of thiscollntry, of having the article combined abroad. We cannot tell, of course, what operated upon the minds of the framers of that particular passage of the act. We can only deal with their language as they have set it down for us, and under that language it seems very clear that there is nothing in this shipment except "gun-stocks mounted, """""'-articles .which are properly .described in the tariff, QIllyby the phrase" manufactures composed wholly or in part of metal;" and they should therefore pay that duty, and no other. decision of the board of apPraiser!,! is reversed.
(DUtriet CO'ILrt, D. $mI.th Carolina. March, iS91.)
Where a per80l(l is arrested on a peace-warrant from one state judge, and mitted to jaU after hearing before anotherjudge acting within his Jurisdiction and in accordance with state p.ractice.!J.e be. by the fedeJ,'&l distnct court on habeas cOrp1Ll1,' as bemg depnved of hIS liberty WIthout dueprbcess of law, contrary to Const.U. S. Amend. a. .
.Habea8 ,(]o,pU8' . O. B ·. N<»1hrap, for petitioner. G. Lamb Buist, for the sheritf.
SIMONTO}i,J.; A petitipnwas filed in this case, praying that a writ directing the sheriff of Cbarlestoncounty to produce the body of the petitioner, who is imprisoned in violation of the consti" tution of the United States. The specific violation charged is that he is deprived of his liberty without due processoflaw. Amendment 14. The sheriff produces the body of thepetitiouer, and fO.r return to thE.> writ says that he had been in his custodyunQ-el' a warrant from.Trial Justice WILLIMAN, under a peace-warrant; and that, while so in custody, he was the presiding judge of the brought beWrethe Honorable J. court of (Mntnon pleas for his county ; that his honor was· pleased to .order, after hearing the cause, that the prisoner be recommitted .to the jail of Charleston county. The prisoner,peing in jail under state process, having no special privilege or immunity, I cannot entertain this application imprisoned in violation of the constitution of the in the point charged. But the return. shows that he was committed a state judge after hearing. . This seems to me to be. due process of law. ,The state judge acted upon a matter within his jurisdiction, p!loSsed upon the constructionoCthe state. law and practice. See & parte Ulrich, 43 Fed. E,ep. 663.Were I to review his action, it would give to ,this proceeding the effect of a writ of ermr, which cannot be done.. & parte Park8, 9.3.0, S.18; Ec parte QarU, 106 U. S. 521,1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 535. Remand the prisoner.
HALL 17. PATTERSON.
(Oircuit Oourt, D. New Jersey. Maroh 8,1891.)
EXTltADITJON-W ARRANor.--IRREGULARITY 011 PROCElIlDINGS-TRIAt..
A fugitive from justice, extradited and convicted for the crime for which the warrant. of extradition shows he was surrendered, cannot defeat. execution of sen· tencebysetting up irregularities in the action of the foreign court which granted the warrant.
A statute fixing punishment, and providing that defendant'U on being convicted shall be punished" by imprisonment, does not require sentence to immediately follow conviction; and the time defendant remains in jail after conviction and before sentence, awaiting a decision on his pleas in bar to other indictments, will not be deducted from his term of imprisonment.
On Habeas Corpus. William 1': Johnson and H. N. Barton, for petitioner. E. R. Crane and John P. Stockton, Atty. Gen., for respondent.
GREEN, J. The facts in this case, as they appea'l.' on the petition: for the writ of habeas corpus, and in the return made by the respondent to the said writ, are these: In 1881 William A. Hall.. the petitioner, was chief clerk in the office of the comptroller of the city of Newark, in the state of New Jersey, and as such it was his duty to receive moneys paid in settlement of taxes duly levied and assessed as the same became due, and to keep a true account of the said receipta of moneys in the books of the comptroller, for that purpose provided; While acting in this capacity Hall committed the crime of forgery, as it was alleged; the felonious acts consisting-First, in the making, uttering, and passing a certain check or order for the payment of money upon the National State Bank of Newark, payable to the order of one William H. Winans, for the sum of $270; and, secondly, in the fraudulent alteration of the cash-book and accounts kept by him in the office of the comptroller of the city of Ne,vark, whereby an entry therein of $562.32 of cash received bybimfor taxes on the 18th day of March, 1881, was made to read and appear as $362.32. At theDecember term, 1881, of the court of oyer and' terminer held in and for the county of Essex, having jurisdiction of the crime of forgery, the grand inquest formally presented against Hall a bill of indictment, charging him with the forgery of the check. In the mean time Hall had become a fugitive from justice, having fled to Canada, and it therefore became necessary for proceedings in extradition to be had against him, that he might be brought back to New Jersey for trial. Accordingly, in due form of law, and pursuant to the treaty between the United States and Great Britain, ratified in 1844, relating to the extradition of persons charged with crime fleeing from one country to the other, such proceedings were begun, and were carried forward regularly, SO far as the arrest of Hall upon proper complaint of the agent of the United States, by the authorities in Canada, and the subsequent examination before the proper Canadiantribunal,to