\,:-' - ,t'"
UNITED STATEs: !v.HUrLSMANo' ,1
(Dlstfibfcbut(Et D. MJ'ssotid,E.'h.'
.lI1¥ch letter, Or the abstraction of itS contepts,! after it has been so del1vreaddres!'ed to be but before It has been again 'depOS1'&!d in the maUns not an offense, under ReY. St. § 3892.
,in w.!iose Care it 'illa.ddressed, it.is no'longer in tlle' ,custody' of:,thlr United subjcelrt' to jurisdiction; alId, :the,qp\\niIlK and destruction of
;: i ,:- _ . _ -' , '",
'been delivered by the ptistalauthorities to 'the' person
Thi,sw?san indictment undel'lIection3892, Rev. St. U. S. nQtgui1tY. :" '",',' ,;
i ','" 1
JIWY :hqvhagbeen impanl!led and sworn, counsel ,for defendant stated that they would a.gi·ce with the, Vnited Stlltes attorney that the in ,the case were as follows: ' A directed to :Miss H., "care Superintendent City Hosplta:1';:St.:nOUis; Mo.," wiJis'in due cOllrsllot mail received by'thri's\1perintendent, at otnce in the OitY''::ElospltaI.This'superintendent was authorized to recl!ive, ollpl.J;tlents f<ilr ultiroatell,el1'!"ery to them. MIss, H. had been the ,bospItal, when the'letter reaj;hed there, tl,nd' had, left her new' address' with the' s1'!perintendent. ,The; latier erased the address from the envelope,wr6te on it the new address of Miss' H., and delivered the letter, so readdressed, to the defendant; who was'S: messenger boy.in thebospltal servIce, street letter boX. Defendant took the with dh:eetlons to him to, put it, in money and, I'tamps wJ,lich were in it, and deletter, qpened it, stroyed the letter and envelope; of course,not !leposlting either in the letter '" 'i, " "',;, ' "" " ' Counsel for defendant, on tliis state' of' fa.cts, agreed'to by the district attorunder UnIted States law ney, submitted that there ;was no otl'ense Qr under ,the constitution; citing U. S. v. ,Salford, 66 Jred. 942, ,and U. S. v. Lee, 90' Fed. and cases thereIn referred to., , ' , ' The United 'States aftotney read opinion from the attorney general departineht, relying mainly'(\n case of U.S'. v. Hall, 98 U. for the S. 343; :in,support of the indictment ,and the prosecutjon.
E. A. 'ROzier, U. Geo.
,," " , and Jos. P. Vastine, for
, , '
ADAMS, District Judge (orally). This is not a new question with me. I 'had occasion lately; while holding court in the Western district, toe'ltamine the law' very carefUlly. I then held that section 3$92, Re"V."St., did not, ,when properly construed, contemplate such a this, and,' if 'it did, it'was doubtful if the power of congress; under the constitution, would permit such legislation. CongreE!s has: full power, under the constitution, to regulate the carrying of the mail, and to protect all mail matter as ,long as it is in the custody of the postal authorities. When the postal authorities have fully discharged their dntiesjby delivery of the'letter to the person to whom or in whose care it was addressed, they have fully discharged their functions, and in my opinion have gone as far as congress has authorized them to go. Whatever offense the defendant has committed, if any, in this case, is one which may be cognizable under state law, but is not under the United States law. The jury will return a verdict of "Not guilty." That being done, the defendant will be discharged.
Verdict accordingly. Defefidant discharged.
IN RE ANDERSON.
ANDERSON et aL
May 20, 1899.)
PERSONS IN CUSTODY OF STATE AUTHOlt·
(Circuit Court, W. D. North Carolina.
FEDERAL COURTS-HABEAS CORPUS ITIES.
It Is a general rule that a person held In custody by the authorities of ,. state, charged With an offense, will not be discharged on a writ of habe8.111 corpUS by a federal court before his trial, but will be left to submit his defense to the state courts, and, if denied any rights under the federal constitution or laws, to pursue his remedy by direct proceedings In error to the supreme court of the United States; and It isonly In exceptional cases that a federal court will exercise Its discretionary power to Interfere In the first Instance. 1
Where, however, the act for which a person Is held in custody by state authorities is one whlcb was done or omitted In pursuance of a law of the United States, or of an order, process, or decree of a court or judge thereof, as where It was done as an officer of the United States in the execution of & process of a federal court of competent jurisdiction, and the officer acted within his jurisdiction and the scope of his process, he Is entitled to federal protection, and will be discharged on a writ of habeaS corpus. 'Rev. St. § 788, providing that marshals and their deputies shall have in each state the same powers in executing the laws of the United States as sheriffs and their deputies may have by law in executing the laws thereof, refers only to the district in which the marshal is appointed, and gives bim 110 authority to act as an officer outside of such district. A marshal wllo attempts to execute a process outside of his own distriCt and in another state, although It is one relating to real estate, and the court jn his district has assumed to exercise jUrisdiction to determine rights therein, al).d in going upon the land he follows the command of his writ, acts as a trespasser, and the writ .affords him no protection. Petitioners for a writ of habeas corpus in a federal court, a deputy United States marshal of the Eastern district of Tennessee and his assistants, were arrested by the authorities of North Carolina, charged with the commission of an assault and other trespasses In that state. On the hearing It was shown that the acts charged against petitioners were committed while executing a writ of possession awarded by the United States circuit court in the Northern division of the Eastern district of Tennessee upon a decree entered in that court; that petitioners arrested the defendant found In possession of the land, and held him In custody for two days, while they removed his effects to a distance from the land, and dismantled his house; also, that the land was situated In the state of North Carolina. There was also evidence tendinlr to show other acts of petitioners not warranted by the process under which they assumed to act. Held, iliat upon such showing they would not be discharged.
UNITED STATES MARSHALS-ExECU1'ING PROOESS OUTSIDE OF DISTRICT.
FEDERAL COURTS - HABEAS CORPUS - ARREST OF UNITED STATES MARSHAL BY AUTHORITIES OF ANOTHER STATE. .
This was a hearing on the application of Murphy L. Anderson, :William N. Barr, and George W. Metcalf for a writ of habeas corpus. Will D. Wright, U. S. Atty" A. E. Holton, U. S. Atty., P. E. H. McCroskey, and Jones & Jones, for petitioners. F. P. Axley, Ben Posey, J. H. Dillard, and Merrimon & Merrimon, for respondent.
1 For 1urlsdictlon of federal courts on habeas corpus, see note to In re Ruse, 25 O. C. A.4.