80HMIEDEtf V. BARNEY.
should follow'those decisions· if it appears that, by reason of the situation of the parties and'Of the subject.matter,to hold otherwise would subject a party to double payment of the same debt, without the possibility of l'elief from the federal courts. The motion for a new trial is overruled.
and others v.
(Oircuit Oourt, 8. D. New York. 'April 2, 1881.)
1. PRACTlCE-ATTORNEY'S DOOKET ST.
In a suit at law there were three trials before a jury, resulting upon the first trial in a verdict for the plaintiff, but followed, upon the second and third trials, in two separate verdicts for the defendant. Held, under section 824 of the Revised Statutes, that the defendant's attorney was entitled to a docket fee of $20 for each of the three trials.·-[·ED. '
Almon W. Griswold, for plaintiffs. Thomas Greenwood, Asst. Dist. Att'y, for defendant.
C. J. In this case, a suit at law, there were three trials before a jury. In the first there was a verdict for the plaintiffs, in the second a verdict for the defendant, and in the third a verdict for the defendant. In taxing the defendant's costs, after the third verdict, the clerk allowed ail attorney's trial fee of $20 to the defendant for each of the three trials. The plaintiffs have appealed from such allow. ance, claiming that but one trial fee of $20 should be allowed. The provision of the statute (Rev, St. § 824) is that .the pensation to be taxed and allowed to an attorney, "on a trial before a jury," in a civil case, shall be "a docket fee of $20." There have been three trials before a jury in this case. It has required such three trials to enable the defendant to secure the present result. The plaintiffs had the first verdict, and the defendant obtained a new trial. The defendant had the second verdict, but the plaintiffs obtained a new trial. Each of the three trials was a complete trial. A trial is not deprived of its character as a trial in fact because the verdict
is set aside and new trial is' granted. The very granting ofa new trial implies that the proceedings which resulted in the prior verdict was a trial. The docket fee is allowed for "a. trial." Each trial is a trial, and a docket fee of $20 for each trial is allowable now,although verdict at the first trial was for the plaintiff, and a.lthough the first verdict for the defendant was set aside. The present verdict for the defend. ant gives him a right to now tax in his favor the three docket fees. The practice in the state courts of New York is to the same effect. Hamilton v. Butler, 4 Rob. 654; Strong v. Day, 44 How. Pro Rep. 390; Howell V. Van Siclen, 8 Hun. 524.
NOTE. In the Bay Oity, 3 FED. REP. 47, the court held that the fee was taxable under section 824, whenever the trial was entered upon by the swearing of a jury in a common-law case, or by the introduction of testimony, or the final opening of the argument upon a final hearing in equity ot admiralty. "The fee," said the court, "is not made by the statute to depend upon a judgment or decree, but is taxable on a trial or final hearing." The fee was therefore allowed in that case, which was a suit in admiralty, upon a discontinuance by the libellant after the evidence upon both sides had been concluded. In Shafer v. Oarr, 6 FED. REp. 466, in an action by an assignee to recover the assets of a pankrupt, two trials were had, but the jury disagreed in both instances, and the case was finally discontinued. Under tbese circumstances it was held that there had been no ,i trial before a jury," within the terms of section 824, which would authorize a taxation of a docket fee of $20. In this connection, a reference to the case of Osborn v. Osborn, 5 FED. REp. 389, may not be inappropriate. In that suit, which was equitable in its character, certain questions had been submitted to a jury, under the provisions of a state statute, but by reason of a disagreement no verdict was found. The court there held that there had been no such final hearing or trial in the state court as would prevent the case from removed into the fedeIal court under the provisions of the "Local Prejudice Act." "The verdict of the jury," said the court, "becomes a necessary part of the final trial of the case;"-[ED.
UNITED STATES V. JOHNSON.
UNITED STATES V. JOHNSON.
Oircuit (Jourt, S. D. NeJID York.
1. May 19,1881.)
PROSTITuTION-I:MPORTATION OF WOMEN-AcT OF MARCH
3, 1875," 3-18 ST. AT LARGE, 477. SectionS of the act of March 3,1875, (18 St. at Large, 477,) relating to the importation of women into the United States for the purposes of prostitution, is applicable to women imported for that purpose all countries whatsoever. In an indictment for the violation of such statute, it is not necessary that the acts constituting the importation should be set forth.
Evidence, upon the trial of such indictment, of the character of a house of assignation kept by the defendant, and of acts done at such house after the woman was imported, and while she lived there with the defendant, relating to the place named in the indictment as that where the purpose of prostitution was to be carried out, is admissible to show the purpose of prostitution laid in the indictment.-[ED.
Indictment. Motion in arrest of judgment. William P. Fiero, Asst. Dist. Att'y, for the United States. John A. Goodlett, for defendant. . BLATCHFORD, C. J. The defendant was indicted and convicted under section 3 of the act of March 3,1875, (18 St. at Large, 477,) which provides as follows:
"That the importation into the United States of W6men for the purposes of prostitution is hereby forbidden; and all contraets and agreements il). relation thereto, made in advance or in pursuance of such illegalimporta. tion or purposes, are hereby declared void; and whoever shall knowingly and wilfully import, or cause any importation of, women into the United States for the purposes of prostitution, or shall knOWingly or wilfully hold, or attempt to hold, any woman to such purposes, in pursuance ot such illegal importation and contract or agreement,shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned nOi exeeeding five years, and pay a fine not exceeding $5,000."
The indictment was for importing for the purposes of prostitution. The act is entitled"An act supplementary to the acts in relation to immigration." The first section of the act relates to the certificate of voluntary emigration to be given, under section 2162 of the Revised Statutes, by a consuI of the United States to the master of a vessel, in regard