habenscorputl, his discharge would have been absolute and final, and he could not have been again sentencedor tried for the offense. EX parte Lange,' 18 Wall. 163; ..Rep.477. 'Assuming, but not deciding, that his dischargeon habeas corputl. after suffering part of the puniahmerit under the void sentence, would have precluded the Imposition of a legal sentence upon the verdict ofguilty , or another trial for the same offense, it does not follow that a reversal of such a sentence on a writ of error sued, out defendarit himself is attended with any such consequences. See Ex parte Lange,18 Wall. 173, 174, and pages 197, 198; 1 Bish..Crim. Law, §§ 1023, 1025. But this aspect of the case has not beeu and no opinion is expressed upon it. If the defendant conceives that a legal sentence cannot now be imposed upon him on the existing verdict of guilty, and that he cannot again be tried for the same oftEmse, he can raise these questions in the trial court. The judgment of the district court of the United States for the district of Kansas, i8 rilversed, and the cause remanded to that court with instructions to proceed therein according to law.
UNITED STATES tI. RAGAZZINI.
(CircuU Cou.rt. 8. D. Nf1W Yor1c. AprU 4, 1892.)
Under Rev. St. § 5424, it is a criminal ofreos8 to sell a certificate of naturaUzatlon to other than the person to w/lom it wasissued, and it is immaterial that such ceJ:'o tificate vras fraudulently procured, by misrepresentation to the oourt., or that it was forged, if prima facie and apparently valid.
At Law. Indictment of Guido Ragazzini for selling naturalization papers in violation of Rev. St. § 5424. Verdict of guilty. Heard on motion in arrest of judgment and lor new trial. Motion denied. Edward MitcMa, Diat. Atty., and Mr. Mott, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the United States. KeUogg. Ro86 & Smith, for defendant.
BROWN, District Judge. The defendant wae indicted and on trial convicted, under section 5424 of the Revised Statutes, for the ofllmse of selling "to a person other than the person for whom it was originally issued, a certificate of citizeqship, or certificate showing any person to be admitted a citizen." On trial it appeared that the certificate referred to in the first count of the indictment was issued by the superior court of this city, a common law court of competent jurisdiction in naturalization proceedings, and was as follows: "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, STATE OF NEW YORK
"E Plu.ribus Unum.
City and Cot/ill-ty of New York-ss,.: "Be it remembered that on the 22nd day of October, tn.tbe year of our Lord . one thousand eight hundred and ninety-one, Angello Cordello appeared
in.tlle supBrior court of the city ()f New Y'Cll'k, (the cQurt beiI)g a court a clerk, and seal,) and applied to cO.urt to be ,become a citizen' of the United ,States of to,' the proviS"lons of the several acts of congress of the of America fot purpose and provided. And the said applieaint: 'having thereupon produced to the COUl't suohevidence, made such dechirlltion:and renunciationj and taken such oaths'a$al'6.by:the said acts rew:as ordered by the said c(jurt, that tile sahlapplicant be adhe was accordingly admitted, by, the said cQurt to be a citizen of the'Onitild States of America.., " whereof, the seal oithe said conrtis hereunto affixed this 22nd 'day of October"one thousand eight hundred and ninety-one, and in the ane liUlldred' and sixteenth .year of ()ur: independence. ,;<\.. . By the Court: THOMAS BOESE. Clerk." rFheee'ttificate alleged count of. the iudi('.tment to have beeni'so1d was in the same .form, certifying the admission to citizenship in Uie'sMnecourt ,of Leooodo Salvatori on the22d of October, 189l. On,the trial Angello Cordello and' LeonadoSalvatori were calleQ.as witnesses for the defendant, and testified that they never applied for the certificates, never were in court that issued them, did not authorize anyone to get the certificates for them, and did not know the defendant. Angello Adamo, a witness for the prosecution, testified that he knew the defendant, ahd':hiOctober made an arrangement to purchase two certificates pf frqm him, and agreed to give him eight dollars for the two; that he gave him the names of Leonado Salvatori apd.,AJl,!n;U<;> lil,l;llip of paper as the riames of the persons for who!U,·hew;ahted the certificates; and that afterwards, in the afternoon of tHe "lga:me day, the defenQ.ant delivered to him. the two certificates above referred to, for which he paid the defendant eight dollars. " Theiicoun.selfor the :deftindant at the -close of the case for the prosecution> moved that "the jutiybe directed to find a verdict of not guilty, on the grbu'ndthat it had dot been proved that the certificates sold by the defendRlilt'W6regenuine cel1tificates; and at the end of the case he'moved that the jury be directed to find a verdict of not guilty, on the ground that the evidence showed that the certi.ficates had been fraudulently obtained and were void; both of which motions were denied. He also requested the court to the jury that to convict defendant they rh9s'tfind that the' certificates were genuine and valid certificates, and th'at they were legally and properly issued for the persons named therein; each of which requests the court refused, and to each of which exceptions were duly taken. The court charged that the papers, being papers, with the seal of the court upon them, and being issued for the two men named in them, could not be sold to Adamo without brInging the defendant within the law, to which the defendant duly excepted. There can be no doubt u.pon the evidence that the certificates in question were procured by fraud and imposition upon the court that issued them, and that they would be canceled by the court upon proof of these facts. The defendant"oonttlnds that section 5424 of the Revised Statq;u1red i
" ;, . . " , .,' , "
UNITED','STATES tI. RAGAZZINI.
utes cOllersonly the sale, of valid certificates; and in support of that contention the case of People v. Stevens, 38 Hun, 62, is cited, in which it was beld that the feloniously stealing by the defendant of a satisfaction piece of a mortgage before delivery would not sustain an indictment for larceny, because sucb aJ:l undelivered and inoperative satisfaction piece was not the subject of larceny. In the case of Phelps v. People, 72 N. Y. 334, it was held that a draft was the subject of larceny, under statute.. And so the question here the express provisions of is purely one of the intent and construction of the federal statute. That question is to be decided not upon any mere technicality, but with reference to the language of the statute, its several clauses, and the evils it intended to prevent. The)tatuteof 1813 (2 St. at Large, c.42, § 13, p. 809) is referred to as the origin ofthe existing act, and as evidence that only the sale of valid certificates was intended, like those in that act contemplated and provided for the benefit of seamen. The language of the Revised Statutes, bowever, is' somewhat different and broader than the earlier statute, and is Imide applicable to any "certificate of citizenship." It makes criminal the selling or dispClsing of, to "any person other than the person forwhorri it was originally issued, a certificate ofcitiienship, or certificate showing any person to be admitted a citizen.''' Preceding portions of the same section provide similar punishment for personating another person, or appearing in any assumed or fictitious name, or for falsely, making; forging, or counterfeiting any oath, notice, affidavit, signature, etc_, required or authorized in the course of naturalization; also for uttering, selling, or disposing of as true or genuine any false, forged, .antedated, or counterfeited oath, notice, record, paper, etc. rererred to covers the selling of forged certificates. The that clause is followed by the clause on which the present indictment is founded. This clause evidently was designed to cover the sale of genuine certificates. It cannot apply to anything else; and it certainly does not lessen the offense that the genuine certificate was fraudulently ' . procured. 'Taking,the provisions of section 5424 altogether, it seems manifest to me that its i'ntention is to prohibit all selling of naturalization papers, whether genuine or forged, and whether valid or invalid. Both classes alike mean deception, and more or less of public mischief. Theevils are the same, the papers sold are forged or genuine, when, as in this case, they appear to be· regular on their face. The act as a whole shows that the sale of either was intended to be made alike criminal. The fact that these certificates were fraudulently procured, and that, if the real facts had been known to the court, the certificates could not have been lawfully issued, seems to me immaterial. The certificates genuine documents. They were issued by the superior court and "issued for" the persons severally named in them, to-wit, Angello Cordello and Leonado Salvatori, and for no one else; and the defendant knew this. They were also certificates that, in the language of the statute "showed" those two persons "to be admitted as citizens." They
wete 'J1l!ima"./4cU and8.ipparen.tly:valid('and>tbey,s&&ln foO' me to come precisely' within the'spirit,alld the ibtent Qf.the act. The motiOD',should therefOre: be 'denieci,r;- I·, .;
CoPTRTGBT-"DRAllUTICl CoMPOSITION"-STAGE PANClIll.
the poetrY,Qf Qlotion bya .. graceful movemeu\i8,'oolbblDOO with 'an attractive arl'll:ngemellt of drapery, ilgbts, and shadows, nQ !,tory, pQrtraying no character, and depicting' 110 emotion, 18 not a , 9Ompositlon," withiJ:? tlIe tlIe copyrigll.t
Fuller against Minnie Renwood for of. copypght. On motion for preliminary inDenied. ," '" ' " ', was a stage dance, which is described in copyrighted composiiio,p:
SERPENTINE DANCE, :BY, }!'AlWl: LoUISE FULLER.
"stage: dark. Music. Valse. Dancer' enters In the dark, unseen, and stands'lit back of stage, up center. Lights thrown sUdd1mly from right and left first entrallcl's,on dancer;center.: Piclure: :press held high above head fr9m,the back ,anA front., Afterthe,picture the dance begins, dancer ,H'lld,iplf dress high the hea!!.". ,1'he ,slow, sliding, valse Ploves the tW9' fights following like a then, with a backward rnovetnent to time of musie, and several turnsvrt'ft<lhI'B center again. Then the same down to [eft comer and back. Then !\\lith a 'rolmdmovement from one Side to the' othE-r, she danl'es down byseveral"whirls or tU,r!,!s which bring dancer baCK to center. (All this time the dress Is h!:'ld up above the head behind as in thep[cture In the beginning.) She makes two turns, dropping dress. which the two whirls or turns bring into place. She takes drf',ss up at each sidA, turns' bOdy from side to side, s wingi ng dress from one side li)w In front to hilih at.:back, formillg a half umbrella shape over the head, first .with one sille of,dtess and then tb"other. (This mvvement can be termed the -Umbrella ,Movement,' and preliJellts a effect.) The dancer stands at cel)ter, catches up dreliJs at each side:towat,ds the, bottom. holds it high at each,side"and mQves?an,ds from right to left, imitating a spiral shape, daneingtowards footlights." Wilen reaching footlights, changl's straight moveof !tfIII B, and, keepin'gsame gives a roUnding, swerving movement that,causes dress to'llssume the shape of a large flower; the petlll8 being thedT,e$8 in tnotion. ',l'hlln several qUick turns Up towards back, (dress up on eacq ,s\de,) qUick run ,down stage t(), ihecenter, followed by several and, twining ,the skirt over,poth armsl,drops,onone, knee, holding dresS,ltpbehind head toforlll backgl:ound. , (This picture is a very p;racefulclim,aJt and finish to tahleau of the dance.) Picture.' Lights off. Darkness. Lights up, aljd' 'dancer gone. co (Fillale of first tableau.) ·