Volume 26 — Federal Cases

<p>[This was an indictment against Alvin Graff and Thomas Owen for conspiracy.]</p>

<p>Case No. 15,245.</p> <p>Post-Office — Letter Postage — Writing on Newspapers.</p>

<p>Case No. 15,246.</p> <p>Mexican Land Grants—Location—Exceptions to Survey.</p> <p>[A Spanish land grant stated that the land granted was longitudinally one league and lati-tudinally one-half league, a little more or less. Under the grant a formal judicial measurement was made and possession given, the record of which was attached to the expediente. The act of possession recited that the measurement was commenced from south to north, in which direction they measured 5,000 varas, and placed as a landmark a certain water mill on the south, from whence, west to east, they measured 3.000 varas, where a landmark was set. It further recited that the grantee took possession “for one league longitudinally and 3.000 varas lati-tudinally.” Two of the attesting witnesses to this proceeding testified that only two lines were run, and one of the witnesses stated the commencement and termination of each of the lines, and identified a pme tree as the point of beginning of the'east and west line, and also stated, the point of beginning of the north and south line. The magistrate testified to the running of four lines, in contradiction of the act of possession signed by him. The extension of the grant to the lines sworn to by such officer would disregard entirely the measurements provided for and referred to in the proceeding, and would include a much greater extent, of land than called for in the grant or mentioned in the act of possession. Such grant will also include densely timbered lands almost valueless at the time of the grant, and would exclude valley lands where the greater part of the improvements were situate;?, at the time of the grant. These timber lands had become of considerable value at the time of the suit. Held, that the boundaries of the survey should be located in accordance with the testimony of the attesting witnesses.]</p>

<p>Case No. 15,247.</p> <p>Interkai. Revence—Distiller’s Bond—Defense — Division of Opinion.</p> <p>Suit on distiller’s bond, with defense of a similar character as in the last case [Case No. 15,394), with the further defense that the collector in this case had actually seized or dis-trained property of the distiller, or principal in the bond, to pay these taxes, and that instead of holding and selling it to the best advantage, he had surrendered it to a receiver of a state court, who had sold at a sacrifice, and with large expenses, to the prejudice of these sureties.</p>

The defendant [Alexis Grassiu], the commander of a French cruiser, called the Diligent, belonging to a subject of France, a Mr. Guyon, domiciliated at New-York, arrived at this port in April or May last The defendant reported himself to have come in, in distress, and applied to the custom-house, and obtained a permit to land her cargo, guns, &c.. and to repair.

<p>Case No. 15,249.</p> <p>Public Lands—Powek to Lease Mines—Terms of Lease—State Sovereignty</p> <p>1. Congress have power to authorize the president to lease lead mines.</p> <p>2. These mines being- designated in the law of 1807 [2 Stat. 449] as being within the Indiana territory, may still be leased under the law, though the territory has been divided and after-wards organized into two states.</p> <p>3. The term “territory,” in this respect, is used as descriptive, of the locality of the mint's, and not to limit the exercise of the power to any. subdivisions of it.</p> <p>4. The lease being for smelting ore is within the law. It is unnecessary for the lease to require the lessee to perform all the operations of mining.</p> <p>5. Such a power exercised by the federal government. does in no respect interfere with state sovereignty.</p> <p>6. It was a prudential and proper regulation to limit, in the lease, the price of laud.</p> <p>The district judge being of a different opinion from the one here expressed, the points were certified to the supreme court for a decision, under the act of congress. This case was taken to the supreme court and the above views were sustained by that court. 14 Pet. [39 U. S.] 526.</p>

<p>Case No. 15,250.</p> <p>Revence Coleectou’s Bond—Statutory Lien— Sureties—Personae Estate—Forth-com i no Bon i>.</p> <p>1. The act of congress respecting delinquent collectors and their sureties, created a lien on the land of the parties to the official bond; but the lien cannot be enforced until all the personal (■state is exhausted, and on a joint judgment obtained against all tbe parties to tbe bond, the personal estate ot ail, liable to the execution must be exhausted, before the .land of any one of them can be reached: in other words, the land of one surety, who has no personal estate, cannot be subjected to the payment of any part of the judgment, while there is personal estate in the hands of another surety, who has paid his aliquot part of the debt.</p> <p>2. The process act of the United States, gives the same remedy to the United States, against the lands of delinquent collectors, that the state of Virginia gives against the lands of those against whom she has obtained a judgment.</p> <p>3. A forthcoming bond which is forfeited, is a satisfaction of the judgment on which the execution issued: and no further proceedings can be founded on that judgment. Tbe forthcoming bond is substituted for the original judgment, and the recourse of the plaintiff is against the parties to that bond. But. quaere—Does the giving sueli bond operate a discharge of tbe debt, or does it merely arrest further proceedings upon the original judgment, until the forthcoming bond shall be found to be unproductive?</p> <p>4.As to the equitable relations between sureties and their prmcipal, and .sureties and sureties, see the following opinion:</p>

<p>On the fifteenth day of March, 1863, the schooner J. M. Chapman was seized in the harbor of San Francisco, by the United States revenue officers, while sailing, or about to sail, on a cruise in the service of the Confederate States, against the commerce of the United States; and the leaders of the expedition, consisting of Bidgeley Greathouse, Asbury Har-pending, Alfred Kubery, William C. Law, Lorenzo L. Libby, with several others, were indicted, under the act of congress of duly 17, 1862, for engaging in, and giving aid and comfort to, the then existing rebellion against the government of the United States.</p> <p>The indictment alleged in substance: (1) The existence of a rebellion against the United States, their authority and laws; (2) That the defendants traitorously engaged in, and gave aid and comfort to, the same; (3) That in the execution of their treasonable purposes, they procured, fitted out and armed a vessel to cruise in the service of the rebellion, on the high seas, and commit hostilities against the citizens, property and vessels of the United States; and that the vessel sailed on such cruise.</p> <p>The cause came on for trial at the October term of 1863. A nolle prosequi was entered as to Law and Libby, and they became witnesses for the prosecution. The trial lasted several weeks. The testimony showed that Harpending, a native of Kentucky, and Ru-bery, a native of England, had for some time contemplated the fitting out of a privateer at San Francisco, for the purpose of taking several of the mail steamships plying between that port and Panama, and other vessels. With this object in view, Harpending had gone across the country to Richmond, Virginia, and procured from Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederate States, a letter of marque, .authorizing him to prey upon the commerce of the United States, and to burn, bond, or take any vessels of its citizens; and also a letter of instructions directing him how to act) and containing the form of the bond, in ease any prize taken should be bonded. Upon his return to San Francisco, he and Rubery made arrangements for the purchase of such a vessel as would suit their purpose; but these arrangements afterward failed, on account of the dishonor of the drafts drawn for the purchase-money by Rubery, and the consequent want of funds. They, also, made a voyage to Cerros Island for the purpose of examining into its fitness as a depot and as a rendezvous, whence to attack the Panama steamers. In January or February, 1863, Harpending made the acquaintance, at San Francisco, of William C. Law, a ship captain; broached to him the project of fitting out a privateer; stated what had been done; exhibited his letter of marque and instructions; solicited him to enter into the enterprise, and assist in procuring a vessel; and said, among other things, that, if he had succeeded in carrying out his previous arrangements, he could easily have taken three of the mail steamers. Law agreed to take part in the scheme; and soon afterward pointed out the schooner J. M. Chapman, a vessel of about ninety tons burden, and a fast sailer, as well adapted for the intended cruise. Several meetings in reference to the subject took place between Harpending, Rubery, Law and the defendant Greathouse, who had been introduced by Harpending to Law as a capitalist; and the result was that Greathouse purchased the schooner, and furnished money to procure arms, ammunitions and stores, and to engage a mate and a crew. The next morning Law took charge of the schooner; moved it to a wharf at the city front; informed Libby of the project, and induced him to go as mate, and engaged four seamen and a cook. All this time Greathouse gave out that he was acting in the interest ■ of the “Liberal Party” in Mexico, and under this pretext, arms and ammunition were purchased, consisting of two brass rifled twelve-pounders, shells, fuse, powder, muskets, pistols, lead, caps and knives. These were packed in cases marked “oil-miliv and “ma-chineix” and shipped as quietly as possible; and there was also shipped a number of uniforms, such as are usually worn by men on vessels of war. A large amount of lumber was also purchased and shipped, with which to construct berths, a prison room, and a lower deck. While these preparations were going on, and every thing was being made ready to get off, the relations in which the participants were to stand in respect to one another were arranged. It was settled that Greathouse, in consideration of the material aid he had furnished, should be first, and that Law should be sailing-master, and second in charge. There was some discussion as to the share each was to have in the fruits of the expedition; and though nothing definite was settled, it was understood that Greathouse was to have the largest share, Harpending the next, Law next, Rubery fourth, and Libby fifth. The plan of the cruise was to sail from San Francisco on Sunday, March 15th, 1863, to the island of Guadalupe, which lies some three hundred miles off the coast of California ; there land Harpending and the fighting men, who were to be shipped on the night of Saturday, March 14: thence proceed to Manzanillo, and discharge such freight as might be taken; then return to Guadalupe, and lit the schooner for privateering purposes; then proceed again to Manzanillo, where the men were to be enrolled and their names inserted in the letter of marque, a copy of which was thereupon to be forwarded to the government of the Confederate States. It was their plan first, to capture a steamer bound from San Francisco to Panama, on its arrival at Manzanillo, land its passengers, and with the steamer thus taken, capture a second steamer; next to seize a vessel from San Francisco, then engaged in recovering treasure from the wreck of the steamer Golden Gate; thence they were to go to the Chincha islands, and burn United States vessels there; thence to the China Sea, and finally into the Indian Ocean. In pursuance of this plan, and to prevent suspicion, the schooner was “put up” for Manzanillo. A partial cargo was shipped on board, and Law cleared at the customhouse for that port, signing and swearing to a false manifest. On the night of March 14, in accordance with the plan arranged, all the participants went on board. Fifteen persons, who had been employed by Harpending as privateersmen, were placed in the hold in an open space left for them among the cain-directly under the main hatch. The only person absent was Law, who remained on shore with the understanding that he should be on hand before morning. It afterward appeared that he had become intoxicated, and did not get down to keep his appointment until after the schooner had been seized.</p> <p>During the evening, Rubery had heard rumors that the vessel was to be overhauled, and as the morning approached and Law did not appear, he proposed sailing without him. At daylight, Law being still absent, Libby cast off the lines and began working the schooner out from the wharf into the stream. The mainsail was partially hoisted; but no sooner had the wharf been left, than two boats were observed putting off from the United States sloop-of-war Cyane. then lying at anchor in the bay. As they headed for the schooner, Libby, pointing at them, said to Greathouse that they were after them. Itubery then insisted on running up the sails; but Libby replied that there was no wind, and it would be useless. In a few minutes afterward, the schooner was boarded and seized by the officers of the United States, and the enteiprise nipped in the bud. Scarcely had the seizure been effected, when Law made his appearance on board and was arrested with the others. The revenue officers of the United States had been aware of the intended enterprise from an early period, and maintained a constant watch night and day on the vessel. They knew the character of the cargo, which had been carefully noted by the watchmen; were aware of the shipment of arms, and saw the cases with their false marks. On the Saturday afternoon when the schooner was cleared for Manza-nillo, they increased the watch, chartered a steam-tug, and put policemen on board. They also made arrangements for the reception and confinement of prisoners at the United States fortifications on Alcatraz Island, and procured the two boats with their crews from the war-ship Cyane, to act in conjunction with them on a given signal. In the evening, the revenue officers themselves went on board the tug, proceeded to a wharf next that at which the J. M. Chapman lay, and watched the men going on board. When the schooner cast off its lines at daylight and headed out into the stream, the boats from the Cyane put off and boarded it according to previous arrangement; and at the same timé the tug steamed up. Greathouse and Libby were on deck; the others were below. Fifteen men were found in the hold under the hatch, besides two sailors, who had been placed there over night to prevent them from leaving the vessel. A search being instituted for papers, a number of scraps, some torn, some chewed, and some partially burned, were found strewn about the hold. The two sailors confined testified that some of the party had employed the time intervening between the boarding of the vessel and the opening of the hatchway in destroying papers. Loaded pistols and bowie-knives were found stowed away in the interstices between the packages of the cargo. In the baggage of Harpending and Rubery were found, among other, papers, a proclamation to the people of California to throw off the authority of the United States; a plan for the capture of the United States forts at San Francisco,and particularly Alcatraz; also, the form of an oath of fidelity to their cause, with an imprecation of vengeance on all who should prove false. It was shown that some of these papers were in the handwriting of Harpending; and Rubery admitted that he and one of the defendants had spent some time in preparing the oaths. After the seizure and arrest, the prisoners were taken to Alcatraz and confined. The schooner was unloaded. and the arms and munitions examined. An army officer testified that, in his opinion, the schooner might have destroyed a Panama steamer; but naval officers expressed a doubt whether this could have been done. The defense offered no testimony; but claimed, among other things, that a state of war existed between the United States and the Confederate States; that the latter were entitled to, and had in fact received from the former, belligerent rights; that privateering on the part of either side was a legitimate mode of warfare, and made those engaged amenable only to the laws of war; that at least, the defendants could not then be held to have committed any offense of which the court could take jurisdiction. They also claimed that the schooner had not started on her voyage, but had left the wharf with the intention of anchoring in the stream and waiting there for the captain and papers: that whatever the ultimate intention might have been, there bad, in fact, been no commencement of the cruise, and that, at any rate, no offense could have been committed until the schooner had reached Manzanillo, and been ready to commence hostilities. They finally insisted that there could he no treason. and no conviction under the indictment, lor the reason that “aid and comfort” had not been actually given. ;</p>

<p>Case No. 15,253.</p> <p>Post Office—Conveying Letters Contrary to Law.</p>

Habeas corpus upon the petition of Aaron Putnam, a citizen of New Fork, against Timothy Green, a citizen of Rhode Island, to bring up the body of Eliza A. Putnam, an infant daughter of Putnam, about ten years old, alleged to be wrongfully detained in the custody of the defendant, who was her grandfather.

Indictment under section 543S, Rev. St., for presenting for payment to the pension agent in Milwaukee, a false and fraudulent claim for pension money. The defendant was convicted. [The case is npw heard upon motion in arrest of judgment.]

[In error to the district court of the United States for the district of Maine.] The action was brought by the United States as indorsees of a promissory note made by the defendants [Elijah D. Greene and others] at Eastport on the 10th of February, 1826, whereby for value received they promised to pay the president, directors, and company of the Bank of I’assamaquoddy or order, three months after date, the sum of twenty-three hundred and thirty-three dollars and thirty-three…

<p>Case No. 15,259.</p> <p>Judgment — Mandamus to Comped Payment — Special Tax—General Warrant.</p> <p>A general warrant was refused where relator had compelled the levy of a special tax which was then in process of collection.</p>

Claim for about three leagues of land in San Mateo county, confirmed by the board, and appealed by the United States. [This was a claim by Maria Louisa Greer and others for the Cañada de Raymundo, two and a half by three-quarter leagues. Granted August 3, 1840, by Juan B. Alvarado to John Coppinger. Claim filed February 3, 1852. Confirmed by the commission, November 29, 1853. Now heard upon appeal by the United States.]

<p>Charles A. Greiner was brought under a charge of treason, before a commissioner of • the United States. At the suggestion of the commissioner, the examination, on account of the importance of the case, was taken before the district judge of the United States. At the close of the examination, the United States district attorney, George A. Coffey, Esq., moved that the defendant be committed or held tor trial at the next actual session of the United States circuit court for the Southern district of Georgia. The district attorney admitted that the United States courts did not now sit, nor their process actually run, in Georgia; but he argued at length, that the judge was bound to presume that those courts would sit in Georgia within a reasonable period; and that this, was at present a legal presumption, in view of the avowed purpose of the government to re-establish its authority there.</p>

C. Gole, Esq., was of counsel for the Iowa Central Railroad, in a suit in the circuit court of Iowa, to foreclose a mortgage on said road. It L. Ash-hurst, Esq., was chairman of a committee of stockholders of the road; J. F. Gate was president of the said road; both the latter gentlemen were in frequent confidential communication with Cole, with reference to the litigation and matters connected therewith.

[This was an action by B. F. Dowell, who sues as well for himself as for the United States, against William Griswold, for certain penalties for the violation of an act of congress in presenting certain false claims. On June 2, 1S77, an order was issued for the defendant’s arrest, with hail fixed at $10,000, and on June 4th, the arrest was made, and bail given accordingly.

Claim for four and a half leagues of land in Sacramento county, confirmed by the board, and appealed by the United States. [This was a claim by Hiram Grimes for the Rancho San Juan, situated in Placer and Sacramento counties. Granted December 24, 1844, by Manuel Micheltorena to Joel P. Dedmond. Claim filed April 13, 1852. Confirmed by the commission May 8, 1855, and now heard upon appeal by the United States.)

<p>[This was an action by the United States against Henry Grotenkemper for penalties for violation of internal revenue laws.]</p>

Indictment against the prisoner [Thomas Crush] for an assault on one Neil Lemon with a dangerous weapon, and with an intent to kill, founded on the act of congress of 1825. c. 276, § 22 [3 Story’s Laws. 2U06; 4 Stat. 121], The indictment contained several counts, in some of which the offence was alleged to be committed on the high seas, and in others in Massachusetts Bay. The prisoner pleaded not guilty, and was convicted of the offence by the jury.

Claim for a league and three-fourths of land in San Francisco county, confirmed by the board, and appealed by- the United States. [This was a claim by Josefa Harro de Guerrero and others, heirs of Francisco Guerrero, for El Corral de Tierra, granted October 16, 1839, by Manuel Jimeno, and May 1, 1844, by Manuel Miclielt.orena, to F. G. Palomares. Claim filed April 6, 1852, confirmed by the commission April 18, 1853, and now heard upon appeal by the United States.]

The defendants entered into’a bond to the secretary of the treasury, conditioned to perforin certain covenants, by which the defendants agreed to pay 500.000 guilders to the bankers of the United States, in Amsterdam, by three instalments, viz.: one sum on the 1st of February, another on the 1st of March, and the residue on the 1st. of May; and on failure, then to pay the amount not so paid in Amsterdam, into the treasury of the United States, with damages at the rate of…

At law. The petition of Aaron Goodrich [against James Guthrie; secretary of the treasury] respectfully showeth: That by the act of the… Held: upon Jerome Fuller: and your petitioner would further show that thereupon he informed the president of the United States, the secretary of state and the secretary of the treasury of the United States, of the determination of your petitioner to continue in the faithful discharge of the duties devolving on him by his appointment. his…

<p>[Error to the district court of the United States for the district of Ohio.]</p> <p>[This was an action by the United States against David GWynne.]</p>

Indictment against the defendants [Benjamin Haines and others] for an endeavour to make a revolt on board the ship Plato, in Boston harbour, founded on the crimes act of 1790, c. 36 (9), $ 12 [1 Story's Laws, 85; 1 Stat. 113]. Plea, not guilty.

<p>Case No. 15,274.</p> <p>National Hanks —Embezzlement bv Casiiier*— lNDICTM ENT BT GRAND JURY.</p>

<p>Case No. 2,989.</p> <p>.Parties to Bile before,Service — Effect of Omission on Jurisdiction—Joint Trespasser Omitted—Amendment—Injunction—Incapacity of Corporation no Defense to Trespass— Wrongful Diversion of Water—Preliminary Mandatory Injunction.</p> <p>1. A person residing out of the jurisdiction of the court, though named as defendant in a bill, is, substantially, not a party to the action, till service of process or appearance.</p> <p>2. Whenever the making of a person a party to a bill would oust the jurisdiction of the court, as to other parties, such person, if not an indispensable party, may be omitted, for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction, as to other parties, whose rights can be determined without his presence.</p> <p>3. In an action to restrain the diversion of water by tort-feasors, one of the tort-feasors, who resides out of the jurisdiction of the court, may be omitted.</p> <p>4. The court may permit an amendment to a bill, by omitting a non-resident, named thereon as defendant, but not served, without prejudice to a motion for injunction.</p> <p>5. In an action by a corporation for injuries to property in its possession, the court will not, at the instance of the wrong-doers, enter into any inquiry as to the legal capacity of such corporation to hold the property.</p> <p>[Cited in Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Orton, 32 Fed. 470.]</p> <p>G. Plaintiff, in excavating a tunnel in a mountain to its mining claim, on the public lands of the United States, struck a subterranean flow of water, which it appropriated and enjoyed for several years. Defendants ran a tunnel from a distant point into the mountain, to a point some thirty feet in altitude, directly below the point where the plaintiff obtained the said water; and. thereupon, the water, which before flowed through plaintiff’s tunnel, was intercepted and discharged through defendants’ tunnel, and by them appropriated to their own use. Held, that said diversion and appropriation of the water was wrongful, and that complainant was entitled to an injunction.</p> <p>7. Where defendants, by means of a tunnel run into a mountain at a lower altitude than complainant’s tunnel, wrongfully intercept water appropriated by complainant, flowing in its said tunnel, and divert it therefrom, a preliminary injunction will be granted, restraining the continuance of said diversion, even though an obedience to the injunction should render it necessary for defendants to build a bulkhead, or dam, across the tunnel.</p> <p>[Cited in Portland v. Oregonian Ry. Co., 6 Fed. 324; Hatch v. Wallamet Iron Bridge Co.. Id. 33S. Distinguished in Mutual Union Tel. Co. v. Chicago, 10 Fed. 313.]</p> <p>[NOTE. Subsequently, at the trial of another of these eases, Judge HOPKINSON charged the jury that the duty of obliterating these marks was upon the seller of the casks, and not upon the buyer. Under this instruction the jury found a special verdict, upon which judgment was entered for the defendant. Case No. 15,277; affirmed by circuit court. Id. 15,-278.]</p>

This was a second suit, brought by the attorney of tlie United States for the Eastern district of Pennsylvania, ou the representation of the collector of the customs, against the defendant [John Halberstadt], to recover the penalty of one hundred dollars accruing on the purchase or removal of an empty cask, which had contained foreign distilled spirits, before the marks set thereon by tbe officers of the customs had been defaced.

<p>Case No. 15,278.</p> <p>Violation or Collection Laws — Removal or Casks in Which Spirits have been Imported.</p> <p>I The provision in the forty-fourth section of the collection act of 1799 (1 Stat. 6(>0). imposing a penalty upon "every person” who "shall sell or in any way alienate or remove” any cask which has been emptied, before the marks and numbers haie been defaced in the presence of an officer, and the certificate accompanying the cask delivered up, as required in the preceding pa rt of the section, applies only to the person who sells or alienates such « cask, and not to the purchaser thereof, although the latter does, in fact, remove it.]</p>

[This was a suit for forfeiture of a half barrel containing 23 wine gallons of brandy. Por the former decision of Judge Hoffman, of which this is a re-examination, see Case No. 10.981.]

This was an action [by James W. Hall] to recover a number of penalties for a violation of the twenty-fourth section of the act of congress of the 3d of March, 1825. There was a special verdict, by agreement of the parties, which is fully stated in the opinion of the court; and the cause is now heard on a motion to enter judgment upon the verdict in favor of the United States.

<p>[This was an indictment against John Hall, Jr., and William Pettigrew.]</p>

[In error to the district court of the United States for the distinct of Missouri.] [John] Hall was collector of internal revenue from 1862 until 1866. This is a suit upon his official bond. He claims to be allowed $5.010 for the pay of sixteen deputies and for clerk hire. Section 25 of the act of June 30. 1804 (18 Stat. 231), governs the case. The treasury department rejected the claim.

Action upon an embargo bond given by the defendant, on the 27th of December, 1807, with condition to reland the cargo taken in for Portland, within the United States, the dangers of the seas only excepted.

<p>Case No. 15,286.</p> <p>Internal Revenue — Distillery — Measure of Taxation—Assessment—Action upon Bqxn.</p> <p>1. Under the 20th section of the act of July 20th. 1808 (15 Stat. 133), the producing capacity of a distillery, and not the amount of spirits produced, is made the measure of taxation.</p> <p>2. An assessment by an officer is not a condition precedent to a collection of taxes, when the statute prescribes the amount to be paid: and such amount can be recovered in an action of debt.</p> <p>[Cited in Folsom v. U. S., 21 Fed. 37; U. S. v. Bristow. 20 Fed. 379.]</p> <p>3. In an action upon a distiller’s bond, an erroneous assessment, which did not include the amount actually due, as prescribed by the statute. is uot conclusive against the government.</p>

<p>Case No. 15,287.</p> <p>InternalRevenue— Bono or Collector—Blear-ing—Executing Bond in Blank.</p> <p>1. To an action in debt on the bond given by a collector of internal revenue against such collector and his sureties, the defendants joined in [(leading non est factum:</p> <p>2. Held. that, under such a joint plea, the defendants must susiain it as lu all. or fail as to all.</p> <p>3. The execution of such a bund by the sureties. with the date left blank, authorizes the principal to fill the blank at ills discretion.</p>

The indictment charged the defendants [H. H. Hamilton and Lewis A. Logan] with conspiring' together to defraud the United States of its revenues; also with conspiring together to commit an offense against the United States. In three of the counts the defendants were charged with conspiring together and with persons to the grand jury unknown, to commit the offenses charged.

<p>Case No. 15,289.</p> <p>Foufeituue — Penalty — Amount of — Vai.ce of Vessel.</p> <p>1. A forfeiture of a vessel or its value under section 4143 of the Revised Statutes does not vest either in the government, absolutely, but only from the time it elects which to take.</p> <p>2. The penalty given by said section 4143 is equal in amount to the value of the vessel at the time of the commission of the illegal act which .causes the forfeiture: and the amount of such penalty is not affected by any subsequent change in the value of said vessel, or its loss or destruction.</p>

<p>Case No. 15,291.</p> <p>Seamen—Indictment for Revolt—High Seas— Change of Master—Shipping Articles.</p> <p>On an indictment for an endeavour to make a revolt in a ship, founded on the 12th section of the act of the 30th of April, 1790, c. 9 [1 Stat. 115], it is not necessary to prove, that it was committed on the high seas. If the master of a ship, after the commencement of the voyage, be by sickness disabled from pursuing it, and a new master is appointed, the shipping contract with the seamen is not dissolved thereby.</p> <p>[Cited in U. S. v. Bladen. Case No. 14.606; U. S. v. Keefe, Id. 15,509: Joy v. Allen, id. 7.552; U. S. v. New Bedford Bridge, Id. 15.867; U. S. v. Staly, Id. 16,374; U. S. v. Seagrist, Id. 16,245; Ex parte Byers, 32 Fed. 407.]</p>

<p>Case No. 15,292.</p> <p>Esckow — Internal Hevenck — Action ox Dis-tij.i.ek's Bond — Plea.</p> <p>1. In a suit on a distiller's bond against him and.his sureties, one of the sureties pleaded that he signed the bond and delivered it to the principal obligor on condition that it should not be delivered to the obligee till it was signed by one B; that said B never signed it; that the agent of the obligee, when ho accepted and approved the bond, had notice of said conditional delivery: and that so the writing was not the surety’s deed. Held, that as to the surety, the writing was a mere escrow, and that the plea was good.</p> <p>2. The condition of the bond was that the principal obligor, a distiller, should faithfully comply with all the requirements of law in relation to distilled spirits. And the breach laid was that the principal obligor, having manufactured one thousand gallons of spirits at his distillery, had sold and removed for sale the same therefrom without first paying the taxes thereon as required by law. Plea, that he did not sell or remove for sale said spirits or any part thereof without having first paid the tax thereon as required by law. Held, a good plea on general demurrer.</p> <p>NOTE. Consult U. S. v. Dair [Case No. 14,-913]. Por a full discussion of the plea of non est factum, and delivery in escrow, consult Foy v. Blackstone, 31 Ill. 538; Furness v. Williams, 11 Ill. 229; Neely v. Lewis, 5 Gilman, 31; Price v. Pittsburgh. Ft. W. & C. R. Co., 34 Ill. 13; White v Bailey, 14 Conn. 275; Coe v. Turner, 5 Conn. 92; Carr v. Hoxie [Case No. 2,438]; Jackson v. Rowland, 6 Wend. 666.</p>

John Hammond was, at the last term, indicted at common law, and convicted of stealing the goods of Margaret Lefferty, on the 20th of February, 1801. A motion in arrest of judgment was made and continued to this term.

This was an indictment for conspiracy to defraud the United States, based on section 5440, Rev. St. The defendants [Samuel W. Hammond and others] pleaded specially to the indictment returned against them, that two of the grand jurors (naming them) by whom the indictment was found were disqualified to act as such, because without duress or coercion they had taken up arms and joined the insurrection and rebellion against the United States, and adhered to the said insurrection…

<p>Case No. 15,296.</p> <p>Conspiracy to Burn Vessel — Recognizance — Offence—Commissioner—Surety.</p> <p>1. A recognizance taken by a commissioner of the circuit court, conditioned for the appearance of the principal “to answer the charge of a wilful and corrupt conspiracy to bum the steamboat Martha Washington on the Mississippi river,” is void, as not describing an offense made punishable by any act of congress, and cognizable by the circuit court.</p> <p>[Cited in U. S. v. George, Case No. 15,199; U. S. v. Hudson, 65 Fed. 73.]</p> <p>2. By the 23d section of the act of congress of March 3, 1825 [4 Stat. 122], defining and punishing the crime of conspiring to cast away, bum, or destroy a vessel, the intention thereby to injure underwriters is an essential ingredient of the crime; and without the averment of such intention, no offense is described in violation of any act of congress.</p> <p>3. The authority of a commissioner in arresting. holding to bail, or committing to jail, is expressly limited to complaints or charges importing an offense against the laws of the United States.</p> <p>[Cited in U. 8. v. Eldredge (Utah) 13 Pae. 679.]</p> <p>4. The recognizance in this case, was void ah initio, and created no obligation on the principal to appear.</p> <p>5. The bail was not therefore hound by this recognizance for the appearance of the principal, as it is of the essence of every undertaking by the bail or surety of another, that there should have been a valid obligation of the principal.</p>

<p>Case No. 15,297.</p> <p>Assault upon Foreign Charge d’affaires—In-tent—International Law.</p> <p>1. Indictment for an assault upon the charge d’affaires of Russia, and for infracting the law of nations, by offering violence to the person of the said minister.</p> <p>2. When the minister had a large party at his house, and a transparent painting at his window, at which a mob who had collected took offence, the defendant fired two pistols at the window, his intention being to destroy the painting, without doing injury to the person of the minister, or of any one.</p> <p>3. An assault is an offer or an attempt to do a corporal injury to another, as by striking at him with the hand or with a stick, 'or shaking the fist at him. or presenting a gun, or other weapon, within such distance as that a hurt might be given: or drawing a .sword, and brandishing it in a menacing manner—each of those acts to be done with intent to do some corporal hurt to another.</p> <p>4. The law of nations identifies the property of the foreign minister, attached to his person, or in liis use, with his person. To insult them, is an attack or. the minister and his sovereign; and it appears to have been the intention of the act of congress, to punish offences of this kind.</p> <p>5. To constitute an offence against a foreign minister, the defendant must have known that tire house on which the attack was made was the domicile of a minister; or otherwise, it is only an offence against the municipal laws of the state.</p>

Hanway was indicted for treason against the United States, the punishment for which is death. A number of other persons also stood indicted at this term for the same offence in which he was said to be engaged.

[This was an indictment against J. C. Harbison, for violation of the internal revenue laws.] On the trial of this case the only witness introduced by the government was James Williamson, who testified that about the month of December. 1S0U. he leased from the defendant a still and fixtures, on which witness made one run of eleven gallons of whisky, of which ho was to and did pay the defendant, one-seventh part for the use of said still and fixtures.

<p>Case No. 3,015a.</p> <p>Action op Debt ox Account—Waiver or Tort —Evidence—Witness—Instructions.</p> <p>1. An action of debt will lie on an account, as well as assumpsit.</p> <p>2. A party may waive a tort, and sue in debt or assumpsit; when indebitatus assumpsit is maintainable, debt is also.</p> <p>3. Testimony rejected; witness called to explain testimony, and instructions to jury,—all proper.</p> <p>4. The case of Janes v. Buzzard [Case No. 7,206b] cited and approved.</p> <p>On a subsequent day. these two prisoners appeared in court, and. being called upon to make their election whether to take a new trial or abide by the former conviction, declared their determination to take a new trial. The whole of them were afterwards tried anew, and a verdict of guilty of manslaughter was found mgainst Harding and Grimes, and Williams was , acquitted.</p> <p>Harding was sentenced to three years imprisonment and fine of $1. Grimes to one year imprisonment and a like fine.</p>

<p>Case No. 15,303.</p> <p>Land Titees in California—Nature of Pueblo Titles — Execution and Sale — Control by Government — Grants and Reservations by Military Authorities—San Francisco Puebi.o Lands.</p> <p>1. The existence of a Mexican pueblo at the Rite of the present city of San Francisco, on July 7, 1846, its possession of an interest'in lands to the extent of four square leagues, and the succession of the present city to such interest, having been judicially settled in a controversy between the city and the United States, are matters no longer open to discussion.</p> <p>2. Lands within the limits of the pueblo of San Francisco were not subject to levy and sale under judgment and execution against the city.</p> <p>3. The lands of the pueblo of San Francisco were not held in absolute property, with full right of alienation and disposition, but were subject to the control and disposition of the government until the title passed to private parties; a.nd this right of control.and disposition, which existed in the former government, passed upon the cession of the country to the United States, and could afterward be exercised by them at any time before the property had passed to third parties by the action of the pueblo authorities in accordance with existing laws.</p> <p>4. The officers of the United States army who occupied California prior to the organization of the state government, had no power to grant or dispose of, or to reserve from grant or disposition, any portion of the pueblo lands or any portion of the public property of the United States; they could in no respect impair any rights which the United States may have acquired over either by the conquest or might subsequently acquire by treaty.</p> <p>5. The attempted grant to San Francisco by Gen. Kearny, on March 10, 1847, of the beach and water lots was an act beyond his authority to execute, and passed no interest whatever.</p> <p>6. The attempted selection by Major Hardie. on July 18, 1847, of a government reserve at Rincon Point in San Francisco, was invalid: such appropriation could only have been made by act of congress or order of the president.</p> <p>7. While the president of the United States was authorized in particdlar cases to reserve from sale for public uses portions of the public lands, no such power was vested in the head of any subordinate departments of the government. The secretary of the treasury could not execute nor approve of a lease of any property belonging to the United States without special authority of law. '</p> <p>8. Parties who obtained conveyances from the city of San Francisco, whilst its claim for pueblo lands -was pending before the United States tribunals, took whatever interest they acquired subject to tlie determination of the claim.</p> <p>9. The final decree in the San Francisco pueblo case took effect, by relation, on the day when the petition was presented to the land commission in July. 1852. and is to be considered as if entered on that day.</p> <p>10. The term “grants” in the final decree' of the San Francisco pueblo case, declaring that the confirmation is in trust for the benefit of lot holders under grants from the pueblo, town or city, comprehends all previous conveyances from the city.</p> <p>Findings were accordingly filed and judgment entered thereon for the defendants. The case was afterward taken to the supreme court of the United States, on writ of error, and the judgment was there affirmed by a divided court.</p>

Joseph Thompson Hare. Lewis Hare and James Alexander were indicted under the second clause of the nineteenth section of the act of April.30, 1810. which is in the following words: “Or, if in effecting such robbery of the mail the first time the offender shall wound the person having custody thereof, or put his life in jeopardy, by the use of dangerous weapons.

The coin passed by the defendant [William S. Hargrave] was similar to the genuine coin of the United States in size, color, milling, and the devices on reverse and obverse sides, but differed in weight and in the inscriptions on either side. The indictment contained seven counts, four of which, were framed under the act of March 3, 1825 [4 Stat. 121), and three under the act of June 8,- 1864 (13 Stat. 120).

<p>Appeal from the taxation of costs by the clerk. [This was an indictment against J. B. Harker.]</p>

[This was an indictment against Andrew J. Harmison. upon the charge of knowingly receiving gold dust stolen from the mails.J Motion to have the defendant’s sentence reconsidered, and the measure of punishment readjusted.

<p>Case No. 15,309.</p> <p>INDICTMENT fob VIOLATIONS OF INTERNAL REVENUE Laws—Fraudulent Removal of Spirits —Presumptions—Accomplices—Witnesses.</p> <p>1. In the trial of an indictment for the fraudulent removal of distilled spirits from the distillers’ bonded warehouse, under section 45 of the internal revenue act of July 13. 1866 [14 Stat. 163], it is not necessary for the United States to prove that the warehouse, from which is is averred the spirits were removed, had been designated, or authorized us such, by an officer of the revenue department.</p> <p>2. ’The courr -will take notice, judicially, that the statute requires every distiller to provide such a warehouse: and a jury may legally act on the presumption that the distiller had complied with the law. and has a warehouse as required by the statute.</p> <p>3. In the case of a joint indictment against two or more for a statutory misdemeanor, those charged with the offense, though not personally present at the commission of the unlawful act specifically alleged, may be found guilty as principals in the second degree, if the evidence satisfies the jury they were cognizant of. and participants in. the fraud. In such a case, the law-regards them as constructively present at the commission of the unlawful act.</p> <p>4. The evidence proving the guilty complicity of the defendants, must relate to facts occurring before the commission of the criminal act; and. in the absence of such testimony, there can not be a verdict of guilty solely on proof of occurrences subsequent to the commission of the offense; but such evidence may be taken into consideration by the jury as explanatory of, or throwing light upon, the prior evidence.</p> <p>5. An accomplice in a crime is not disqualified from being a witness; but his evidence is to lie received with great caution; and. as a general rule, especially in crimes involving great moral turpitude, is to be wholly disregarded as unworthy .of credit, unless corroborated by credible testimony.</p> <p>6. The willful false statement of a witness as to a fact material in the ease, may be a ground for th<> rejection of his entire evidence, except 6uch as is corroborated by credible evidence.</p>

<p>Case No. 15,310.</p> <p>Actions against Debtors of the United States —Evi dence—Transcripts from Departments.</p> <p>1. Congress, in derogation of the common law, have made transcripts from the departments at Washington, evidence against public debtors.</p> <p>2. Their mode of authentication, as prescribed by law. must be strictly pursued.</p> <p>3. They are, when so authenticated, prima fa-cie evidence of indebtedness to the United States.</p> <p>4. The omission to give in the account the disallowed credits, under the circumstances of this case, did not render the transcript incompetent as evidence under the post-office act of July 2, 1S30 !•"> Stat. SOJ.</p>

<p>Case No. 3,032.</p> <p>Extension op Patent—Conceusiveness of Commissioner's Decision—Fraud — Enjoining Infringement.</p> <p>1. Where an application for the extension, of a patent under section 18 of the act of July 4. 1886 (5 Stat. 1241, was pending at the time of the passage of the act of May 27, 1848 (9 Stat. 281), which conferred upon the commissioner of patents alone the same authority to extend patents which had previously been confided to the board created by the act of 1836: Held, that it was not necessary to renew the application, but that the commissioner was authorized to go on with the proceedings, as having been properly instituted, and complete them by granting the extension.</p> <p>2. Where the commissioner of patents has jurisdiction over an application for the extension of a patent, his decision is conclusive as to the regularity of the proceedings on the extension. The only exception to the conclusiveness of his decision is, perhaps, the case of fraud.</p> <p>[Cited in Goodyear v. Providence Rubber Co., Case No. 5,583.]</p> <p>3. The defendant was enjoined, before final hearing, from infringing two of the claims of a patent, although it was not held that another claim in the same patent, the novelty of which was disputed, was valid.</p>

The information was in these words: “Be it remembered that L. I..

<p>Case No. 15,312.</p> <p>Powers or the President — Remission of Forfeitures.</p> <p>1. After a judgment in proceedings for a fine, penalty, or forfeiture has been rendered, by which a moiety thereof has become vested in an informer or other individual, it is not within the power of the president by a pardon to remit or release the moiety thus accruing to the individual. His power is limited to a remission of the share of the government only. So held, where the conviction took place before the enactment of section 9 of the internal revenue act of July 13, 1800 (14 Stat. 146).</p> <p>[Disapproved in XI. S. v. Tlmmasson, Case No. 16.479. Cited in Pollock v. The Laura, 5 Fed. 180: The Laura. 8 Fed. 615: TJ. S. v. Griswold. 24 Fed. 305: Re Jayne. 28 Fed. 422.]</p> <p>2. It seems, that before judgment, where the prosecution is wholly in the name of the United States, the president has complete power over the whole case.</p>

[This was an application by H. W. Hendricks for a writ of habeas corpus, addressed to J. O. Harris, sheriff and jailer of Fulton county, Ga., under the act of March 2. IS:!:!.] Act Marc-li 2. 1833; 2 Abb. X. (.'. 2ijó. 266. 269. 272: 2 Am. Law Reg. 150; Ex parte Robinson [(.'ase No. 11,930]: Code, SSi 391. 4024, 402, 5; 3 Kelly. 2; 17 Ga. 498: 1 Hale.

This was an action of trespass brought by the United States [against Richard D. Harris] to determine the title to a piece of land situated within the limits of the navy yard… Held: that the particular description controlled the sweeping clause in the deed, and that the highway did not pass as an incident or appurtenant. Secondly. That the limitation contained in said statute of October 30. 1781. was not a bar to the defendant’s right to the soil and freehold of said streets.

<p>Case No. 15,317.</p> <p>Mexican Land Grants—Colonization Laws.</p> <p>Under the law» of Mexico, more than eleven leagues of land could not be granted in colonization to any one person.</p> <p>■ [The case was taken on appeal to the supreme court, where the decree of this court was affirmed. 22 How. CC3 U. S.) 286.]</p>

Officers and other persons charged with the safe-keeping, transfer, and disbursement of the public moneys are required, by the act of the 6th of August, 1840, to keep an accurate entry of each sum received, and of each payment or transfer, and the sixteenth section of the act also provides that if any one of the said officers shall loan any portion of the public moneys intrusted to him for safe-keeping, disbursement, or transfer, every such act shall be deemed and adjudged…

[This was an indictment against Julius F. Hartwell, Charles Mellen, and Charles H. Ward for embezzlement of public moneys. Defendants Mellen and Ward were tried together and convicted, and a motion for a new trial was overruled. Case No. 15,318. The case is now heard upon a motion by defendants to continue the indictment and suspend sentence and judgment]

.Tames Harvey was indicted at the April term, 1845, of the circuit court of the United States for the district of Maryland for an illegal detention of the mail.

This was an indictment [against Joseph 'Haskell and Charles Francois] containing four counts: First, for making a revolt; .second, for piratically and feloniously running away with the vessel and goods, to the .value of $50; third, for laying violent hands on the.captain to hinder his fighting in' de-fence of his vessel; and fourth, yielding up the vessel to a pirate.

Proceeding for the removal of an offender from one district to another for trial.

Indictment for stealing wood from General Yan Ness, of the value of seventy-five cents. The defendant [James Hastings] was found guilty on the 7th of April, 1837, in the absence of CRANCH, Chief Judge, and immediately sentenced to be imprisoned one month and to pay a fine of one dollar, the jury having recommended him to mercy and his counsel having waived the usual delay of four days, given to move in arrest of judgment or for a new trial.

[This was an indictment under the act of July 14, 1798 (1 Stat. 59S), against Anthony Haswell, for a seditious libel.] The alleged libellous matter which the defendant was indicted for publishing was as follows: “To the Enemies of Political Persecution in the Western District of Vermont: l'our representative (Matthew Lyon) is hold-en by the oppressive hand of usurped power in a loathsome prison, deprived almost of the right of reason, and suffering all the indignities which…

<p>Error from the district court of the United States for the Southern district of New York.</p> <p>Joseph Hatch, master of the ship India, of New York, and Caleb Barstow, his surety, on the Stli day of December, 1821, executed a bond to the United States in the sum of 400 dollars, with the following condition:</p> <p>“Whereas the above bouuden Joseph Hatch, hath delivered to the collector of the customs for the district of New York, in the state of New York, a verified list, containing, as far as he can ascertain them, the names, places of birth, residence, and description of the persons who compose the company of the said ship, called the India, now lying in the said district, of which he is at present master or commander, of which list the said collector has delivered to the said Joseph Hatch a certified copy. Now the condition of this obligation is such, that if the said Joseph Hatch shall exhibit the aforesaid certified copy of the list to the first boarding officer, at the first port in the United States at which he shall arrive on his return ■ thereto, and then and there also produce the persons named therein, to the said boarding officer, except any of the persons contained in the said list who may be discharged in a foreign countiy with the consent of the consul, vice consul, commercial agent, or vice commercial agent there residing, signified in writing, under his hand and official seal, to be produced to the collector of the district within which he may arrive as aforesaid, with the other persons composing the crew as aforesaid, or who may have died or absconded, or who may have been forcibly impressed into other service, of which satisfactory proof shall be then also exhibited to the said last mentioned collector, then, and in such case, the above obligation shall be void and of no effect, otherwise it shall abide and remain in full force and virtue.”</p> <p>The plaintiffs below declared on this bond, without referring to any statute, assigning as breaches that the India departed on a foreign voyage, and on the 27th day of April, 1822, returned to the United States, arriving first at the port of New York, but did not produce to the first boarding officer the persons named in the list of his crew, nor exhibit to the collector satisfactory proof of the death, absconding, or forcible impressment into other service of such persons.</p> <p>The defendants pleaded the general issue with notice of special matter.</p> <p>At the trial the plaintiffs offered the bond in evidence as taken under the act entitled “An act supplementary to the act concerning consuls and vice consuls, and for the further protection of American seamen.” The subscribing witness who was called to prove the execution of the bond, also provejd, that after its execution he altered the word “of,” between the words “certified copy of the list,” and the words, “the first boarding officer,’' to the word “to.” This he did of his own accord and without the knowledge or concurrence of the defendants. It was objected to the bond as evidence, that it was rendered void by this alteration, and also, that it did not purport to be taken pursuant i to said act, and that there was no averment of the fact in the declaration; and that therefore a recovery under said act could not be had upon it. It was also objected that the bond did not purport to be made by Hatch as principal and Barstow as surety, but was joint and several. These objections were overruled.</p> <p>It appeared that the India had made a voyage to Lisbon, and that two of the crew did not return with the vessel to the United States. To justify this, the defendant offered in evidence the following certificate of the consul .of the United States at Lisbon.</p> <p>“I, .T. remberton Hutchinson, consul of the United States of America for the city of Lisbon. &e. do hereby certify, that Joseph Hatch, master of the ship India, of New York, has left in the hospital of this city. George Gardner and John Williams, (two American seamen as appears- from the Boll d’Equipage,) in consequence of their being unable to proceed on the voyage, caused by sickness. I further declare, that Captain Hatch has not paid any extra wages, as the act for the protection of seamen directs to provide passage for those seamen home: In* has paid for their maintenance in the hospital, and has left the amount he says is due them for services on board the ship India. Given under my hand and seal of office, in Lisbon, this twenty-third of March, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-two. J. Pemberton Hutchinson.”</p> <p>They also offiered to prove that the two seamen were left at the hospital in Lisbon by their own request, being sick and unable to return with the vessel; that the master was very desirous to bring them back with him, and that the consul verbally expressed his satisfaction at their being left behind. They also offered to prove that different consuls of the United States at foreign ports, had granted their consent in writing to the master, that seamen should be left, where they were left under circumstances like those in this case. This evidence the court rejected, and the defendants excepted to the decision.</p> <p>The court charged the jury that tlic alteration in the bond was immaterial and did not avoid it, and that they were not to assess damages for the breaches, but find a verdict for the sum of four hundred dollars, as upon a bond taken in pursuance of, said act of congress. The defendants excepted to the charge. The jury found a verdict for four hundred dollars debt and six cents costs. [Case unreported.] These proceedings were brought before this court by a bill of exceptions.</p>

Debt [against Warren Hathaway, and Tut-tle] for tonnage and light money, of 50 cents per ton, as due from certain British vessels coming from Novia Scotia.

[This was a libel against the brig Hattie Jackson and cargo to procure a condemnation for attempting to violate the blockade.]

<p>[This was an indictment against John H. 1-Iaun.]</p>

<p>Case No. 15,331.</p> <p>Shipping—Violation of License Law—Condemnation and Sale to Alien.</p> <p>1. By the licensing act of the United States of February 18th, 1793 [1 Stat. 305], no coaster can be sold in a foreign port, unless her license be previously surrendered; nor is her American character changed by such transfer.</p> <p>2. But if she be condemned for violation of that law, and sold under order of court, she may become foreign property. So if the purchaser under the first insufficient title comply with the requisites of the act of congress of Aug. 4th, 1790 [1 Stat. 145]. In either case she may be a lawful privateer under a foreign commission.</p>

Indictment for having in possession counterfeit treasury notes, with intent, &c., contrary to the acts of congress. By a statute of the state of Kansas, defendants in criminal cases are allowed to testify in their own behalf. On the trial, the defendant’s counsel offered the defendant as a witness to testify in his own favor, relying on the aforementioned statute of the state.

A bill of indictment was found against the defendants [John Hayden. John Grady, and Robert Parker] at the last January term of this court.

<p>Case No. 15,334.</p> <p>Official Bond — Substitution or New Bond — Approval—Liability or Sureties.</p> <p>H.. a pension agent who had given an official bond, received permission to substitute a new bond: which he did, but the bond was not approved by the secretary of the interior for two months thereafter. Two days after the approval, H. resigned, and upon a settlement of his accounts with the department was found indebted to the amount of $6,000, for which suit was brought against the sureties on the first bond. Held, that the approval by the secretary of the interior endorsed on the second bond did not constitute an acceptance of it to stand in lieu of the first bond, the rule of the department being proved that an accounting is required before a new bond is accepted; the bond in suit therefore was the existing bond of H. in force at the time of his resignation, and the sureties thereon are liable to the United States for the deficiency shown upon accounting.</p>

[Error to the district court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts.] This was a writ of error from the district court of Massachusetts, upon an information in rem against one hundred and forty-nine packages of goods seized upon land for ail alleged illegal importation into the United States. The information contained six counts.

[Appeal from the district court of the United States for the district of Ohio. [This was an action by the United States against E. S. Haynes and others brought iu the district court (ease unreported), on an official bond. The case is now before the court on appeal.]

<p>[This was an action of debt by the United Slates against Rowland G. Hazard.]</p>

At law. This was an action brought by the United States against Charles A. Heelischer to recover a debt alleged to be due on a bond executed by defendant as one of the sureties of John Doering, dated December 4, 1830, in the penalty of $1,603.20, conditioned that 20 casks of domestic refined sugar, weighing, net, 16,052 pounds, laden by sold Doering on board the brig Calliope, and entered for exportation for the benefit of drawback, should not be relanded within the limits…

Indictment for gaming contrary to the act of Virginia (Iter. Code, p. 184. § f». Motion to quash the indictment, because the statute points out the mode of prosecution, namely, by conviction before a justice of the peace.

[In equity. Bill by Theodore Comstock ■and others against the Sandusky Seat Company and others for alleged infringement of reissued letters patent No. 4,7S0, original pat•ent numbered 95,466.]

<p>[Appeal from the district court of the United States for the district of Michigan.]</p> <p>In admiralty.</p>

<p>Case No. 15,343.</p> <p>Internal Revenue—Repeal op Legacy Tax.</p> <p>[The act of July 14, 1870 (16 Stat. 261). repealing the legacy tax. did not affect the govern-meat’s rights to a tax which had accrued by the happening of the contingency upon which the legacy passed prior to the date of the repealing act. although the legatee did not become entitled to the possession or enjoyment of the legacy until after that date.]</p> <p>[Cited in U. S. v. Rankin, 8 Fed. S75.]</p> <p>[Subsequently a writ of error was sued out from the circuit court, where the judgment, of this court was affirmed. Case No. 6,341.]</p> <p>UNITED STATES (HELLMAN v.). See Case No. 6.341.</p>

Indictment: 1. For confining the master of the ship Meritor, on board of which the defendants [Henry Henimer and others] were seamen: 2. For endeavoring to commit a revolt on board of the same ship. The facts, as they appeared in evidence, are fully detailed in the opinion of the court on the libel for wages by the same seamen, and need not be here repeated. See The Mentor [Case No. 9.427].

<p>[This was an indictment against Robert Hendrie.]</p>

<p>Case No. 15,347.</p> <p>.Indictment—Illegal Voting.</p> <p>An allegation that a party claimed a right to vote at an election, is not equivalent to an allegation that such party is a qualified voter.</p> <p>[See Case No. 15.346.]</p>

[This was a petition by Salvador Castro for a writ of- mandamus, to be directed to Thomas A. Hendricks, commissioner of the general land office, and to require him to issue a patent for certain land in California.]

This was an indictment under the 17th section of the penitentiary act for the District of Columbia, of the 2d of March. 1831 (4 Stat. 450), by which it is enacted: “That if any free person shall, in the said district, unlawfully, by force and violence, take and carry away, or cause to be taken and carried away: or shall, by fraud, unlawfully seduce, or cause to be seduced, any free negro or mulatto from any part of the said district to any other part of the said district,…

<p>Case No. 15,350.</p> <p>J x i a ctm ent — Internal Revenue — Fraudulent Warehouse Bond.</p> <p>1. The general rule is that, in an indictment for an offence created by statute, it is sufficient to describe the offence in the words of the statute. If the defendant insists upon greater particularity, it is for him to \ show that the case falls within some exception, to the general rule.</p> <p>[Cited in Stale v. Bennett. 102 Mo. 365. 14 S. \V. 860.]</p> <p>2. In an indictment under the 42d section of the internal revenue act of July 13th. 1866 (14 Stat. 162). for executing a fraudulent bond, it is not necessary to set out tbe particulars in which the bond is trnudulent. or the particular manner in which the payment of the tax was evaded, or in which the bond was used, or attempted to he used, in fraud of the revenue iaw. or in which tlie accused executed the bond or procured it to he executed, or connived at its execution.</p> <p>3. Under the 27th section of tha't act. the proper person to give tlie warehouse bond there provided for is tlie person who. under tlie 24th section. gives the notice to the government that he is the person engaged in the business of a distiller. at the distillery in (juestion.</p>

The defendant was indicted, in the first count, for endeavoring to make a revolt; in the second count, for confining the captain. Black and two others were separately indicted for the same offences, committed at the same time. The defendant offered to examine Black and the others, and the question as to their competency was submitted to the court by the counsel for and against the prosecution.

<p>[Appeal from the district court of the United States for the Southern district of New York.]</p> <p>This was a libel of information, filed in the district court, by the United States, against the brig Henry, upon a charge of having been fitted out in the port of New York, for the purpose of engaging in the slave trade, contrary to the act of congress, and praying forfeiture and condemnation of the vessel. The district court, after a hearing on proofs, dismissed the libel, but. upon the facts disclosed on the hearing, granted a certificate of reasonable cause of seizure, to the collector or person making the seizure. [Case unreported.] The claimants took an appeal to this court, to review the order granting the certificate of reasonable cause of seizure.</p>

<p>Case No. 15,353.</p> <p>IVab of the Rebellion'—Trade with Insurgents — Treasury Regulations — Contraband Articles— Conquered Territort.</p> <p>1. The policy of the legislation of congress and the action of the executive department of .the United States, in reference to commercial intercourse between the loyal and insurgent states prior to March 31, 1863, was to prohibit trade with the insurrectionary states, not only in all articles contraband of war in the strict sense of the term, but all other articles whieh could be used by the insurgents to strengthen and support the rebellion.</p> <p>2. Under rule 20 of the regulations of the treasury department of September 11, 1863, loyal persons were authorized to obtain permits to purchase for money, other than gold or silver, any of the products of the country within the lines of national military occupation, except when prohibited by order of the general commanding the department or other special military order, and to transport said products to market.</p> <p>3. Dry goods, groceries, and medicines, sold to the inhabitants along the Mississippi river, in the year 1864, were not articles contraband of war by the legislation of congress or the regulations of the treasury department, or by the law of nations.</p> <p>4. A steamboat having a permit from a special treasury agent to engage in purchasing cotton along the borders of the Mississippi river, within the limits of the states of Mississippi and Arkansas, was fully authorized in May, 1864, under the statutes of the United States, the president's proclamations and the instructions of the secretary of the treasury, to make such purchases, and the forfeiture of said boat and her cargo was not incurred by engaging in such trade.</p> <p>11. The practice in the courts of Pennsylvania, for the jury to find a special verdict, in a cause where the parties have not legal but have equitable claims, does not apply in the circuit court of the United States, that court having equity powers.</p> <p>[See note at end of case.]</p>

<p>Case No. 15,354a.</p> <p>Mcrdbr—Self-Defense—Duty to Retreat—In-STKUCTIOXS.</p> <p>1. In a trial for homicide the court held: That ; the moment a man is bound to retreat, is that in which the danger becomes apparent; up to that time there is nothing to retreat from; he is obliged to retreat if he can safely; but if by reason of the fierceness of attack, he is prevented from moving away, the law does not require it of him; but he is excused in the same manner as if he fled. If, under these circumstances, he gives his assailant a mortal wound it is a case 1 of justifiable homicide.</p> <p>2. The court is not bound to grant an abstract instruction; that in answering a prayer the judge gives an opinion when he modifies the instruction asked for on an abstract point of law it is error.</p> <p>3. The criminal court should not instruct the jury that upon the whole evidence the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal.</p>

<p>Case No. 15,355.</p> <p>Internal Revenue Laws—Tax ox Spirits—Wnat is a Payment— Absconding Collector —Liability of Sureties.</p> <p>A distiller of brandy from fruits, paid to ft deputy collector of internal revenue, money intended as the ta:: on such brandy, without receiving the proper stamps required by law to be affixed to the casks containing such brandy before it could lawfully be sold. The collector converted the money to his own use. and did not enter it on his books, or report or pay it to the United States. The collector did not prepare any stamps for the distiller, or furnish any to him. The collector absconded, and an acting collector was appointed. After that, and against the protest of the sureties on the official bond of the collector, the proper stamps were issued to the distiller, by the acting collector, by direction of the commissioner of internal, revenue. In a suit against such sureties, by the United States, on such bond, to recover the amount of such money: Held, that the payment of the money to the deputy collector, without receiving stamps therefor, was not a payment of the tax on the brandy; that the money did not become public money in the hands of the collector; and that the sureties were not liable for it.</p>

[This was an indictment against Hem & Perkins for an alleged violation of the second section of the act of April 20, 1S18, by hiring persons to go beyond the jurisdiction of the United States to enlist in the service of a foreign prince or state.]

This was an action against Henry L. Hermanee and others as sureties upon the official bond of John T. Curtis, collector of internal revenue for the Thirteenth colleution district of New York. A distiller had paid to a deputy-collector a sum of money intended as payment of the tax on certain brandies, without receiving the stamps required by law to be affixed to the casks. The money was turned over to the collector who converted the same to his own use and absconded.

<p>Case No. 15,358.</p> <p>Tax Sale—Desckiption—Mistake in Sale.</p> <p>1. Unlesfe required by statute, a levy or seizure of real property for the purpose of sale to satisfy a debt, or tax, may be made without going upon the premises, by making a memorandum upon the warrant of the description of the premises for the purpose of a levy and sale.</p> <p>2. A deputy collector of internal revenue to whom a warrant was directed for the collection of a delinquent tax due from Joseph H.. levied upon three hundred and thirty acres of land belonging.to said Joseph H., when said tax became due. by entering upon said warrant a correct description of the premises by metes and bounds, but at the same time incorrectly stated therein, that they were in the occupation of John H., who lived over two miles distant from the premises, and afterwards offered the premises upon which said John H. lived for sale upon the erroneous assumption that they were the premises of Joseph H.. upon which he had levied as above, and there being no bidders, declared the same purchased for the United States for the amount of the tax. interest thereon and charges. Held. that there was no sale of the premises levied upon as the property of Joseph H., and that the United States took nothing by the subsequent conveyance to it from the collector..</p>

The defendant in this case [Samuel F. Hewes] was in execution on a judgment rendered for the plaintiffs, on a debt due before the 5th July, 1838; he was discharged, by the court of common pleas of Philadelphia county, as an insolvent, under the insolvent law of the state of Pennsylvania, on the 5th of July, 1838; and petitioned this court that he might be liberated from imprisonment, under the provisions of the act of February 28, 1839.

The indictment contained two counts, the first charging the prisoner [Catherine Hew-son] with the murder of her child (a female infant) on board the steamer Massachusetts, on the passage between New York and Boston, on the night of July 30, by throwing it overboard; the second charging the prisoner with the murder of a child (not alleging it to have been her own).

<p>Case No. 15,361.</p> <p>Internal Revenue Collectors — Extohtiox — Special Tax.</p> <p>1. The defendant was an ex-revenue collector; the charge was extortion, and the court dwells specially upon the guilty knowledge which the officer should have, in order to warrant a conviction on the charge of extortion: that by the use of the word •‘knowingly,’’ something more is meant than v>hat is implied, in the legal presumption that every man must know the law.</p> <p>2. A person who carries on business, requiring the payment of a special tax, without having paid the same, though violating the law. is not a delinquent within the meaning of the law. of whom, when he makes payment of his tax. mileage can be collected.</p>

<p>Case No. 15,362.</p> <p>Mexican Land Grants — Location of Lines — Objections to Survey.</p> <p>This was a claim by Antonio Hignera and others, heirs of José Hignera, claimants for Los Tularcitos, described by boundaries; granted October 4, 1821, by P. Y. de Sola to José Hignera; claim filed April 1, 1852; confirmed by the commission November 28,1854; and appeal dismissed December 12, 1850,— containing 4,394.35 acres.</p> <p>[NOTE. Upon rehearing, the decree confirming the oificial survey was affirmed. Case No. 15,303. The claimants then took an appeal to the supreme court, where the decree was finally affirmed. 5 Wall. (72 ü. S.) S27.)</p>

<p>Case No. 15,363.</p> <p>Mexican Land Grants—Objections to Schvey — Evidence.</p> <p>[Claim of the heirs of Jose Hignera. On rehearing of objections to official survey.)</p> <p>The official survey having been brought into court on objections filed by the claimants, the cause was at the last term heard, and a decree entered approving the survey. [Case No. 15.362.) A rehearing having been granted, the cause has been reargued and submitted for decision.</p> <p>[The decree confirming the survey was affirmed. on appeal of claimants, by the supreme court. 5 Wall. (72 U. S.) 827.]</p>

On the 13th day of December, 1808, the grand jury presented John K. Hill and others, in this court, for a violation of the embargo laws of the United States, alleged to have been committed in March, 1808, by carrying the schooner Penelope into the port of St. Bartholomews, beyond the limits of the United States, although cleared from the port of Tappahannock, in Virginia, for the port of Savannah, in Georgia.

Indictment for stealing a gold watch. The defendant [Peggy Hill] was a free-born mulatto, not subject to any term of servitude by law. offered Charity, a slave, as a witness against the prisoner. See U. S. v. Mullany [Case No. 15,832], In the case of U. S. v. Terry [Id. 16,454], at June term, 1806, at Washington, and in the case of U. S. v. Shorter [Id. 16,-284], at December term. 1806. a slave was admitted as a witness for free negroes.

This was an action of debt, on a bond executed by Nichols, Eddy, and [Michael] Hill-egas, to the United States, dated 19th July. 1797, in the penalty of 15,000 dollars; with condition, reciting that Nichols had been appointed by the supervisor of the Pennsylvania district, in 1794, a collector of the internal revenue, and the obligation to be void, if Nichols has faithfully executed, and shall faithfully execute the said office, and account for, and pay over, what moneys he…

[Error to the district court of the United States for the district of Ohio.] [This was an action by the United States against Hilliard & Clark. There was judgment in the district court against the defendants. Case unreported.]

[In error to the district court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts.] This was an action of contract brought by the United States against [Frederick C.' Hills and others] certain signers on an official bond of a paymaster in the United States navy, and conditioned for the faithful performance of liis duties as such officer. The bond was for 85,000.

<p>This was an indictment for passing a counterfeit order or check purporting to be drawn by Jno. Hulse, president of a branch Bank of the United States, on the cashier of the Bank of the United States for five dollars, payable to Sandford or order. It was proved. that the order or check was counterfeit, and was passed by the defendant as true; it was also proved that a bundle containing twenty-six similar counterfeit orders or cheeks, was found upon one Moore, who was in company with Hinman, and between whom there was evidence of a connection in passing them. In the indictment the order was said to be signed by “Jno. Hulse,” the order offered in evidence appeared to be “Jna. Hulse”; in the indictment the place was called “Fayel-ville,” in the order it was “Fayetville.” The indictment charges the order to purport to be drawn on the cashier of the corporation of the president and directors of the Bank of the United States; the order is on the cashier of the Bank of the United States. For these variances an objection was made against the admission of the order in evidence. The bundle of notes was offered in evidence to show the scienter, but was objected to, because it was not proved that the defendant had passed or offered to pass any of them, and they were not found in his possession.</p>

<p>Case No. 15,371.</p> <p>Shipping—Public Regulations—Bnrolled Vessels—Authority of Collector to Take Bond.</p> <p>[It seems that the act of February 18, 1793, providing for the enrollment and licensing of vessels to be employed in the coasting trade and fisheries, and for regulating the same, gives no authority to the collector to take a bond in a penal sum conditioned that an enrolled vessel shall not proceed to a foreign port without being licensed for the cod or whale fishery, and without obtaining a permit to touch and trade at a foreign port, during such voyage, and without previously surrendering her certificate of enrollment.]</p> <p>iCited in Bank of United States v. Brent, Case No. 910; U. S. v. Brown. Id. 14.663: Jackson v. Simonton. Id. 7.147.]</p>

<p>Case No. 15,372.</p> <p>Elections and Voteks—Fraudulent Registration—Indictment.</p> <p>An indictment under section 5512 of the Revised Statutes, for fraudulent registration, alleged, in one count, that the defendant, “having no lawful right to register, fraudulently and wilfully did register,” and, íd another count, "Hint he had no lawful right to register, as he well knew, by reason of the fact that he was then and there an alien, and had not been admitted to become a citizen of the United States.” Held, that the indictment was bad. in not pointing out the fraud, and in omitting to state facts showing that tne defendant was not entitled to register; and that the averment that the accused was an alien and had not been admitted to become a citizen of the United States, did not show that he had no right to register, or that he was not a citizen of the United States, or that he had no right to vote.</p> <p>[Cited in Re Coloman, Case No. 2,980.]</p> <p>[Cited in brief in Coin. v. Howe (Mass.) 10 X. E. 700; People v. Neil, 91 Cal. 469, 27 Pac. 761.]</p>

[In error to the district court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts.] This was a writ of error from the judgment of the district court. The original action was assumpsit for money had and received, brought by the United States against the defendant in error [Samuel Hoar, Jr.], as administrator of the estate of Col. John L. Tuttle, deceased.

The facts of the case were as follows: While the British army was on the retreat from the city of Washington last summer, as they passed through -, George county, some of the people of the town of Upper Marlborough took four stragglers, who were following the army. They were sent into the Interior of the country together with a deserter.

<p>Case No. 15,376.</p> <p>Internal Revenue—Supervisory Power or Assessor—Nature of Authoritt.</p> <p>Sections 14. 20. Act Juno '30, 1864 [43 Stat. 226. 229]. as amended by the act of July 13. I860 [14 Stat. 98]. clothe assessors of internal revenue with supervisory [tower over, and authorize them to investigate all accounts, lists, or returns made or required to be made to him by any and ail classes of persons liable to pay taxes upon any property, trade, or business; they authorize him to increase the amount of the assessment in all cases of fraud or omission, and to assess upon every party the amount of tax for which he is liable. This authority is in its nature judicial instead of ministerial.</p> <p>[Cited in U. S. Black, Case No. 14,600; U. S. v. Millinger, 7 Fed. 189.]</p>

The prisoner ivas indicted by the grand jury of the Southern district of New-York for a grand larceny committed on board of the American ship Mary Howard, on the high seas, on a voyage from Liverpool to the port of New-York.

<p>Case No. 15,379.</p> <p>Embezzue.me.st by Collectob op Customs.</p>

This was an indictment [against John A. Holmes] for murder upon the high seas, and came before the court upon a motion for new trial. The grounds of the motion are sufficiently set forth in the opinion. It appeared from the testimony, that on the 12th of May, 1857, the American ship Therese, oí whieii the accused was master, sailed from New York to Valparaiso, thence to Callao, thence to the Chincha Islands, and then back to Callao, at whiek place and time George Y\.

The American ship William Browu, left Liverpool on the 13th of March, 1841, bound for Philadelphia, in the United States. She had on board (besides a heavy cargo) 17 of a crew, and 65 passengers, Scotch and Irish emigrants. About 10 o’clock on the night of the 19th of April, when distant 230 miles southeast of Cape Race, Newfoundland, the vessel struck an iceberg, and began to fill so rapidly that it was evident she must soon go down.

<p>Case No. 15,384.</p> <p>Expert Evidence — Proof of Handwriting — Bank Bills.</p> <p>The signatures of the president and cashier of a bank may be proved by persons who never saw them write, but whose business has made them conversant with bank bills; and the judgment of persons well acquainted with bank notes is sufficient to determine whether a note be genuine or forged.</p>

Motion by Mr. Mason, for the United States to amend the record by adding a statement of the case, according to the requisitions of the 19th section of the judiciary act of September 24th, 1789 (1 Stat. 83).

<p>Libel of information in a cause of forfeiture.</p>

[This was a claim by the heirs of Jacob D. Hoppe for Ulistae, one-half square league in Santa Clara county. Granted May 19, 1845, by Pio Pico to Marcelo Pio and Cristoval, Claim filed March 19, 1S52, by Jacob D. Hoppe. Confirmed by the commission May 8, 1855, and by the district court March 2, 1857 (case unreported). Now heard on objections to survey.)

The ease liad its origin in the duel which occurred near Augusta some time since, and terminated in the death of Mr. Nixon. The people of Augusta made application to the governor of this state to demand the offenders. The governor submitted the affidavits to the attorney general, and the attorney general returned them with the answer, that the offence had been committed in a place within the jurisdiction of the United States, and must be prosecuted in their courts.

This was an indictment [against Albert Horn] for fitting out and sending away a vessel, with intent that she should be employed in the slave trade. At the trial, the defendant was found guilty, and he now moved for a new trial.

Claim for two ieagues of land in Sonoma county, confirmed by the board, and appealed by the United States. [This was a claim by Johnson Horrell and others for the Rancho Rincon de Musalacon two square leagues in Mendocino and Sonoma counties. Granted May 2, 1846, by Pio Pico to Francisco Ber-reyesa. Claim filed February 11, 1853. Confirmed by the commission December 12,1854.]

One Horton was arrested for a violation of the internal revenue laws, and taken before Chamberlin, a commissioner of the United States for this district, for examination, on the 30th day of May, 1872.

<p>Case No. 15,392.</p> <p>Civil Rights— Banishment op Negroes.</p>

<p>Case No. 15,394.</p> <p>InteunalRevenue—Distiller’s Bond—Liabilitv op Suheties—Release.</p> <p>[1. Failure of an assessor to obtain the written consent of the mortgagee of premises about to be used ns a distillery, to such use. and a stipulation that the lien of the United States for taxes should have priority over .the mortgage, before accepting the distiller’s bond, is no ground of de-fence to the sureties thereon; for a government security cannot be imperiled or destroyed by the laches of its officers or agents.]</p> <p>[2. The liability of the sureties is not released by the fact that the collector permitted the distiller to remove from the bonded warehouse a quantity of spirits, sufficient to pay all the taxes due. without first requiring payment thereof.]</p>

[This was an indictment against S. S. Houghton for selling, or exposing for sale, .unstamped articles, in violation of the revenue laws. Opinion on demurrer.]

<p>Case No. 15,400.</p> <p>Indictment fob Unlawfully Withholding Pension—Rev. St. § 54S5—Agency— What Constitutes.</p> <p>1. In order to convict under this section [Rev. St. § 5485], it must be shown by the evidence: 1st. That the person from whom it is alleged that the whole or any part of a pension is wrongfully withheld is a pensioner of the United States. 2d. That the amount alleged to be wrongfully withheld is the whole or part of a pension or claim allowed and due such pensioner or claimant, 3d. That the person charged with the wrongful withholding was an ageiit or attorney of the pensioner, instrumental in prosecuting the pensioner’s claim for pension, or if not an agent or attorney, was a person through whose instrumentality the claim was prosecuted. 44h. That the whole or part of the pension claim allowed and due such pensioner or claimant, was wrongfully withheld from the pensioner or claimant, by such agent or attorney, or other person instrumental in prosecuting the claim for pension.</p> <p>2. The mere fact that a hanker or other person agrees to collect a check paid to a pensioner by a pension agent, does not thereby make him an agent for the prosecution of the claim for the pension, but only an ordinary agent for the collection of the cneck, and if the pensioner accepts a certificate of deposit, in lieu of the check of a pension agent, the ordinary relation of debtor and creditor is created.</p>

<p>[This was an indictment against Francis C. Howard for an alleged violation of internal revenue laws.]</p>

<p>[These were two indictments against (1. B. Howard.]</p>

Indictment alleging that the defendant [Isaac T. Howard], on the 10th of May, 1837, “in and on board a certain ship of the said United States, called the Mount Vernon, then lying within the jurisdiction of a foreign state or sovereign court, in the Roads of St. Helena, and out of the jurisdiction of any particular state of the said United States, the said ship then and there belonging to David R. Greene, Dennis Wood, William Nye, and Clement P. Coveil, citizens of the said…

Indictment for consulting, combining, confederating, and corresponding, with certain pirates and robbers on the seas, the defendants [Howard and Beebee], knowing them to be guilty of piracy and robbery.

<p>Case No. 15,404a.</p> <p>Witnesses—Medical Experts—Right to Ekes.</p> <p>[A physician cannot lawfully lie compelled, even in criminal cases, to testify as an expert to matters of medical science, against his objection, unless first compensated by reasonable fee, as for a professional opinion. Refusal to so testify is not punishable as a contempt.)</p>

This was an action of debt on a bond executed by the defendants [Samuel Howell and John L. Howell].

This was a trial for treason in levying war against the United States.

This was an action of debt, against Jesse Hoyt [impleaded with Robert McJimsey] and six other persons, on a bond executed and delivered by them to the United States, dated November 30th. 1838, in the penalty of $200.(HM). conditioned for the faithful performance of the duties of said Hoyt as collector of the port of New York.

<p>Case No. 15,408.</p>

In equity. The bill in this case set forth, in substance, that the plaintiffs had recovered a judgment against Jesse Hoyt, for $221,0S3-3i), for monies received by him as collector of the port of New-York, and for which he had neglected to account; that, before the recovery of the judgment, Hoyt was the owner of certain real estate and personal property, described in the bill, and that, on rlic Utli of March, 1841, he assigned the same to .1.

Indictment [against Henry Hudson] for resisting a deputy marshal in the service of an execution upon which a verdict of guilty had been rendered. Motion for a new trial for misdirection, and that judgment be arrested on account of a defective indictment.

<p>Case No. 15,413.</p> <p>Claims Due United States — Agents for Collection—Discretion to Compromise— Acquisition of Lands.</p> <p>1. The agent, whose duty it is to enforce legally the claims of the United States against delinquents, may, for the benefit of the government. exercise a reasonable discretion in the management and compromise of suits.</p> <p>2. This necessarily results from the nature of the duties to he performed.</p> <p>3. The executive, without authority of-- law, cannot go into the market and purchase and sell land.</p> <p>4. But it may compromise doubtful claims, and in the best possible mode secure the interests of the government</p> <p>5. Lands so acquired by it, may be sold and conveyed.</p>

This was an action on a bond given by the defendant as postmaster of the city of Charleston. The suit was brought to recover a balance of 85.576.41. due the government at the time of the breaking out of the Civil War, with interest It appeared that Mr. [Alfred] Huger had been appointed by President Jackson, in 1832, that he had held the office from that time tr 1801, and that he had satisfactorily performed all the duties enjoined upon him by law.

This was an action of debt to recover from the defendants (George Hughes and others] the value of certain importations of merchandise alleged to have been entered by them at the custom house in New York City, on fraudulent invoices. The suit was begun on December 10th, 1873. The defense was a general denial.

[Error to the district court of the United States for the Southern district of New York.) This case came up oil a writ of error to the district court. The United States brought an action, in that court, to recover from the defendants in error, composing the firm of George Hughes & Company, of New York City, the value of certain importations of merchandise alleged to have been entered at the New York custom house on fraudulent invoices and in violation of the revenue laws.

I This was an indictment against Edward ■■ I,. Hughes upon the charge of treason. On i the pari of the United States a general de- ! murrer to the defendant's jilea of jiardon was interjiosed. upou which the case now comes before the court.]

<p>(This was an action of debt to recover from the defendants. George Hughes and others, the value of certain importation of merchandise alleged to have been entered by them at the custom house in New York City, on fraudulent invoices.]</p>

<p>Action [against Phoebe M. Humason] on official bonds.</p>

The action is brought against the defendant [Phoebe M. Humason], as the executrix of the will of Orlando Humason, deceased, upon two bonds executed by William Logan, in his life-time, as Indian agent for Oregon, together with said Humason and others, as sureties; the one on August 1, 1861, in the penal sum of twenty-five thousand dollars, and the other on July 1,1862, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars; and both conditioned that said Logan would “carefully discharge the…

<p>Case No. 15,422.</p> <p>Judgment Liens—Recokding.</p> <p>In order to their being liens upon real estate in Virginia, judgments obtained in courts of the United States, in the state, need not lie recorded.</p>

This was an indictment against [Zebedee] Hunt, founded upon the Crimes Act of 3d of March, 1825, c. 270, § 22 [3 Story’s Laws, 2006; 4 Stat 121, c. 65], for assaulting with a dangerous weapon (viz. a cutlass) one Thomas Coombs, on board of the American brig called the Havre, within the waters of Massachusetts Bay, and the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States. Plea, not guilty.

Assault and battery. These were separate indictments [against John Hunter, Colin Hunter, Joseph H. Hunter, and R. H. Davidson, respectively], and not charged simul cum, &c., but were agreed to be tried at the same time by the same jury. offered John Hunter as a witness for the other defendants. objected, unless the jury should first decide on John Hunter’s case, saying that the assault of one is the assault of all present aiding and abetting, and the evidence is that one…

These were bills in equity, which were set down for a hearing upon the bills, answers, and exhibits.

This was a bill in equity, upon the coming in of the answer to which, and a hearing thereupon, the case was by an interlocutory decree of the court referred to a master at the June term last. [Case No. 15,426.] And now, at the present term, the master made his report.

[Appeal from the district court of the United States for the district of New Jersey.] The libel in this case stated, that this vessel. being bound from a foreign port to the United States, after her arrival within the limits of the United States, and before she had come to the proper place for the discharge of her cargo, or any part thereof, and before she was authorised to do so by the proper officers of the customs, did unlade six puncheons of foreign distilled spirits,…

The leading facts proved on the part of the prosecution wer The only evidence offered on the part of the prisoner [William Hutchings] was a paper, pui-porting to be a commission to the Santafecino, and a commission to the prisoner as sailing master on board of her, from the government of Buenos Ayres. The district attorney objected to their going to the jui-y, because: First.

Indictment [against Rue P. Hutchins and others] for conspiracy to defraud the government of its taxes on distilled spirits, and for removal of spirits without the payment of taxes.

Debt by the United States against [.lames H. Hutchinson] the master of an American vessel, to recover under section 24 of the act of 1799 a penalty for importing goods without a proper manifest, the penalty being equal to the value of the goods so imported. The action was tried upon the plea of nil debit, and a verdict was rendered for the United States. The defendant moved for a new trial for misdirection In matter of law.

<p>Case No. 15,432.</p> <p>Federal Couhts—‘Criminal Jurisdiction—Embezzling Public Monets.</p> <p>1. The United States courts derive their only power to try, convict or punish in criminal cases from the constitution and the laws made in pursuance of it.</p> <p>2. The jurisdiction of offences which are cognizable at common law resides in the state courts alone, even though the general government may be the party immediately aggrieved by the misdeed complained of.</p> <p>3. The acts of congress of 13th August, 1841 15 Stat. 439], and 0th August, 1840 19 Stat. 59], under which the prisoner was indicted have obvious reference to persons entrusted by some. act of congress with the legal possession of public moneys,—not to those subordinates, who, not. having been entrusted with such possession, could be punished for a fraudulent conversion, as felons, without any congressional legislation. The act of 1846 throughout applies not to clerks, workmen, or other servants.</p> <p>4. A person appointed under the act of 18th January, 1837 [5 Stat. 136], to be clerk for the treasurer of the mint cannot be indicted under tiie acts of congress of 13th Aug. 1841 and 6th Aug., 1846, for embezzlement of the public moneys.</p>

[This was an action at law by the United States against Benjamin F. Hutton and others, to recover duties on imported goods. Heard on motion for a writ of mandamus.]

An information was filed by the United States district attorney, at the instance of the shipping commissioner in Philadelphia, under section 64 of the act of congress of June 7, 1872 (17 Stat. 262), charging the defendant, James D. Idell, with violating the provisions of section 8, of said act, in that, “on the 14th day of September, 1872, James D. Idell, not then and there being a shipping commissioner, did, within the jurisdiction of this court, perform certain duties…

<p>Motion for substitution of a bond with sureties in place of money deposited in the registry of the court.</p>

This was a motion for a preliminary injunction on a bill filed in behalf of the United States to restrain the Illinois Central and other railroad companies from taking possession, for depot and other purposes, of the south portion of fractional section 10, township 39 north, range 14, and commonly known as a part of the Lake Front in Chicago.

The defendant [Lewis A. Jmbert] was indicted for manslaughter committed by him, being one of the ship’s company of the Ara-bella, belonging to citizens of the United States, on another of the ship’s company of said vessel, in the river Elba.

The jury by which this cause was tried, having returned a verdict of guilty, a motion was made in arrest of judgment, “because there is an exception in the section upon which the indictment is founded, so incorporated with the enacting clause, that one cannot be read without the other, and in such cases the exception must be negatived in the indictment, which in this case is not done.”

In the year 1815, the defendant [Charles J. Ingersoll] was appointed attorney of the United States, for the Eastern district of Pennsylvania. Many bonds, taken by collectors before that time, were transferred to him by his predecessor.

By act of March 12, 1872 [17 Stat. 39], congress authorized the secretary of the treasury to purchase a site for a public building in Cincinnati, and by act of June 10, 1872 [17 Stat. 353], appropriates money for the “purchase, at private sale or by condemnation,” of the site selected. In March. 1873, the secretary of the treasury selected the grounds described in this case, and authorized the district atto’-ney to proceed to condemn the same.

[This was a proceeding brought by the United States to condemn certain lots in Cincinnati, Ohio, for use as the site of a public building. The case was heretofore heard on demurrers to the petition, and on motion to dismiss the same. Case No. 15,-441.1

The act of congress of the 3d of March, 1791 [1 Stat. 199], which imposed a duty upon spirits distilled within the United States, produced at once great opposition, both in and out of congress. A majority of the Southern and Western members, even before the bill was passed, proclaimed an organized agitation for its repeal; and hardly had the president’s signature been obtained before the measure was assailed violently from the country at large.

<p>Case No. 15,444.</p> <p>Violation op Revenue Laws — Omissions from Manifest.</p> <p>[Libel of information for violation of the customs laws by importing goods not entered on the manifest, sustained as to the vessel and dismissed os to the master. Following The Queen, Case No. 16,107.]</p>

<p>[This was an indictment by the United States against James Irwin upon the charge of forgery.]</p>

<p>Case No. 16,446.</p> <p>Admiralty Jurisuiction—Partnership Accounts —Forfeitures—War of Rebellion—Confiscation of Enemy’s Property.</p> <p>1. Partnership accounts cannot be settled in a court of admiralty.</p> <p>2. Nor in a case of forfeiture, can a claim for alleged balances due by a part owner or copart-ner be entertained.</p> <p>3. The sentence of confiscation, if rendered, rises superior to all Kens and equities.</p> <p>4. The rebellious states of the Union are public enemies, and no claim of a citizen or subject of an enemy’s country can he received.</p> <p>5. Every resident of a hostile place or country is regarded in such court as a citizen or subject.</p> <p>6. His property, when libelled at the suit of the government, is condemned, without bis being heard, as that of an enemy.</p>

[Appeal from the district court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts.] This was a libel of information filed in the court below against the bark Isla De Cuba, her tackle, apparel, and furniture, as well as her cargo, claiming a forfeiture of the whole, for an alleged violation of the laws of the United States prohibiting the slave-trade. 1 Stat. 347; 3 Stat. 450. The libel was filed in the district court on the 18th of October, 1858.

This was a petition to open a decree of distribution, in a case of forfeiture of a vessel and cargo which had been equipped and prepared for the purpose of procuring negroes, and persons of color froip a foreign country, to be held and disposed of as slaves.

This was an information against the bark for having been fitted out, and caused to be sent to procure negroes from one foreign country' to be transported to another foreign country, there to be held or otherwise disposed of. The libel was brought under the act of 1818, c. 91 (3 Stat. 450). George W. Ray claimed as mortgagee, and I. S. Correa as owner of the cargo. There was no appearance for the owner of the bark.

<p>Case No. 15,451.</p> <p>Federal Coukts—Jubisdiction of Offences in Indian Countbt.</p> <p>1. The circuit court of the United States had no jurisdiction to punish offences committed in the Indian country west of Arkansas, anterior to the 17th of June. 1844.</p> <p>2. Cases of U. S. v. Alberty [Case No. 14.42G], and U. S. v. Starr [id. 16,379], cited and confirmed.</p>

The indictment was for violating section 3242 of the Revised Statutes, which declared (in 1875) that “every person who carries on the business of ... a retail liquor dealer . . . without having paid the special tax as required by law, shall, for every such offence, be fined not less than one thousand dollars, nor more than five thousand dollars, and be imprisoned not less than six months, nor more than two years.” Section 3244 declares that “every person who sells, or offers…

<p>Case No. 16,456.</p> <p>Pleading on Official Bonds — Revenue Collector.</p> <p>On demurrer to a declaration on an official bond of a collector of taxes: Held, that where the bond does not identify the district m which the officer is to act, nor the date of his commission» nor the sort of taxes which the officer was to collect, nor the date of the act of congress under which the bond was given, and the condition of the bond is that the officer shall faithfullv execute and discharge all the duties of “said office.”—in such case the declaration is demurrable and defective.</p> <p>[A writ of error was sued out from the su-' preme court where the judgment of this court was afiirmed. 104 U. S. 41.]</p>

Indictment for grand larceny on the high seas. The prisoner was indicted under the act of congress, passed 30th April, 1790, § 16 [1 Stat. 116], for a grand larceny, and charged by the indictment with being a mariner, and on the 8th day of July, 1841, on board of a certain American vessel, being a brig called the Petersburgh, on the high seas, and out of the jurisdiction of any particular state, and within the jurisdiction of the United States, of taking and carrying away 57…

<p>[This was an action of debt, for a penalty, against Daniel Jackson.]</p>

[This was an indictment against John Jackson, upon the charge of illegally depriving one Ah Koo of rights secured to him by the act of congress of May 31, 1870. The case is now heard on a demurrer to the indictment.]

<p>The records do not show who represented defendant</p>

<p>Case No. 15,461.</p> <p>UNITED STATES v. JACOBSON. See Case No. 15,461.</p> <p>Criminal Law—Indictment for Destroying Vessel.</p> <p>The master may he indicted for wilfully destroying a vessel with intent, to defraud her underwriters. though the owner be on board and consent to or command the destruction of the vessel.</p>

This was an indictment [against Louis Ja-coby] founded on section 3397 of the Revised Statutes, which provides as follows: “Whenever any… Held: that such averment was not necessary. Section 1024 of the Revised Statutes provides as follows: “When there are several charges against any person for the same act or transaction, or for two or more acts or-transactions connected together, or for two or more acts or transactions of the same class of crimes or of-fences. which may be…

<p>Case No. 15,463.</p> <p>Habeas Corpus—Powers op Deputy Marshal-Arrest—Homicide.</p> <p>1. Where the return to a writ of habeas corpus showed that the petitioner was held in custody under a commitment regular on its face, and made by a competent court, for an act charged as an offense against the state law, but the petilioner alleged that he was really held for an act done under authority of the United States, the court, in view of the case involving a cuestión between the state and the national government, adjourned the hearing and required the petitioner’s counsel to give notice of the adjourned day to the state district-attorney for the county.</p> <p>2. Reasons recommending this practice,—explained.</p> <p>3. Upon a habeas corpus issued under section 7 of the act of March 2, 1S33 (4 Stat. 034), whether the petitioner, is held under state or federal process is immaterial. If he is confined “for an act done in pursuance of the law of the United States or of a process of any judge or court thereof,” he is entitled to a discharge.</p> <p>[Cited in Ux parte Thompson, Case No. 13.-934; Ee Bull. Id. 2,119; U. S. v. McClay, Id. 15,660; State of Georgia v. Bolton. II Fed. 218; Re Neagle. 39 Fed. 850, 135 Ü. S.74, 10 Sup. Ct. 672.)</p> <p>4. A United States marshal has power to appoint a special bailiff to execute a particular process. So held, where the appointment in question was made within a state, the laws of which conferred that power upon sheriffs.</p> <p>[Cited in Re Crittenden, Case No. 3,393; The E. W. Gorgas, Id. 4,585.]</p> <p>5. The duty and proper mode of proceeding, by a marshal or sheriff, or deputy of either, in making an arrest under a warrant,—explained.</p> <p>6. The rule is now settled that the habeas corpus act of March 2, 1833. gives relief to one in state custody, not only when he is held under a law of the state which seeks expressly to punish him for executing a law or process of the United States, but also, when he is in such custody under a general law of the state which applies to all persons equally, where it appears he is justified for the act done because it was done in pursuance of a law of the United States.</p> <p>[Cited in U. S. v. McClay, Case No. 15.660.)</p> <p>7. Where an officer,' lawfully engaged in the attempt to execute process commanding an arrest, is resisted by the party to be arrested, in such manner that he is' obliged to take the life of the latter in self-defense, he is justified by his process in so doing.</p> <p>[Cited in U. S. v. Fullhart, 47 Fed. 805.)</p> <p>[Cited in State v. McNally, 87 Mo. 658.)</p>

<p>[This was an application by Oran O. Michels for a writ of mandamus to be directed to Thomas L. James, postmaster of the city of New Tort.]</p>

<p>Case No. 15,465.</p> <p>Constitutional Law—Regulations of Commerce —Steam Passenger Vessels—Perry Boats.</p> <p>1. The act of congress, approved July 7th, 183S [5 Stat. 304], “To provide for the better security of the lives of passengers on board of vessels propelled in whole or in part by steam,” is founded upon article 1. § 8, cl. 3 of the constitution, giving congress power “to regulate commerce with foreigr nations, and among the several states,” &c.</p> <p>2. If commerce is completely internal, confined to one state, congress has no power over it.</p> <p>[Cited in U. S. v. The Seneca, Case No. 16,-251. Distinguished in The Daniel Ball, Id. 3,564.]</p> <p>3. Congress has no authority to require a license to carry on a ferry over the Missouri river, at a place entirely within the limits of the state of Missouri.</p> <p>4. There is no law previous to the act of July 7th. 1838, requiring a ferry boat plying wholly within the limits of a state, to obtain a license.</p> <p>5. The act of 7th of July, 1838, does not apply to such ferry boats.</p> <p>[Cited in U. S. v. The Planter, Case No. 16,-054. Followed in U. S. v. The William Pope, Id. 16,703.]</p> <p>6. Whether ferry boats plying between the United States and Canada, would be required to obtain a license. Quere?</p> <p>7. The phrase “coasting trade,” cannot be applied to ferrying across a river.</p> <p>[Cited in Ravesies v. U. S.. 35 Fed. 919.]</p> <p>NOTE. This case was taken to the circuit court of the United States on appeal, and the judgment of the district court affirmed. [Case unreported.] A more extended reference is made to the opinion of the learned judge of the circuit court, on appeal, in the case of U. S. v. The Win. Pope [Oase No. 10,703].</p>

This was an action of debt on the official bond of the defendant [Leonard Jarvis], as navy agent for Boston and Charlestown, for a balance alleged to be due from him on the final settlement of his accounts. The defendant was appointed navy agent in April, 183S, to hold the office during the pleasure of the president, for a time not exceeding four years.

[Error to the district court of the United States for the district of Maine.] This was a writ of error to reverse a judgment which had been rendered in the district court in favor of the respondent, on the 1st day of December, 1846. [Case No. 15,468.] The original action in which that judgment was rendered, was one of debt on an official bond given by the defendant [Leonard Jarvis], to secure his fidelity as navy agent, at the naval station in Charlestown, Massachusetts.

<p>Case No. 15,471.</p> <p>International Law — Diplomatic Residence — Unauthorized Entrt.</p> <p>It is a breach of diplomatic privilege, by an officer of justice, to enter the dwelling-house of a secretary of legation, and seize there a runaway slave, for which the officer will be removed from office.</p>

This was an information for entering the Jason as an American bottom, after she had been sold by the American owner to a foreigner.

On the 26th day of October, 1877, the relator recovered a judgment in this court against Jefferson county for $5,120.70 and costs, on negotiable bonds issued by said county in pursuance of the provisions of the act of the general assembly of this state, entitled “An act to authorize certain counties to fund their outstanding indebtedness,” approved April 29th, 1873.

The defendants were indicted for an endeavor to make a revolt on board the whaling ship Georgia, of New London, Captain J. P. Hall. She was regularly registered as an American vessel, but not licensed, and was on a'fishing voyage in the South Atlantic Ocean, when the offence occurred.

This was a motion in arrest of judgment. The prisoners, who were seamen, and part of the crew of the American ship Georgia, were indicted for endeavoring to make a revolt while employed on a whaling voyage from New London, Connecticut, to the South Atlantic Ocean. The indictment contained several counts charging the commission of the several offences mentioned in the second section of the act of congress of 1835. They severally pleaded not guilty.

The defendant [Charles R. Jennison] was indicted under the act of congress of March 2, 1863 (12 Stat. 696), for attempting to defraud the United States of the sum of $52,-843.64. The indictment in one of the counts charged the defendant with conspiring with one Elias K. Moss for that purpose. The defendant was in command of the Seventh Kansas regiment, in 1861. The affidavit on which the indictment was founded is as follows: “State of Kansas, County of Leavenworth, ss.

<p>Case No. 16,476.</p> <p>Offences under Postal Laws — Embezzlement of Letter—Sufficiency of Indictment —Variance—New Trial.</p> <p>.1. Undei» section 5467 of the Revised Statutes, an indictment against a letter-carrier for embezzling a letter entrusted to him as a carrier, to be carried and delivered bj’ him. is not defective. although it does not aver that the letter had not been delivered to the party to whom it was directed.</p> <p>[Cited in U S. v. Laeher, 134 U. S. 632, 10 Sup. Ct. 628.]</p> <p>2. That section creates, first, offences appertaining to letters, and, next, offences appertaining to the contents of letters, and then contains this proviso: “and provided the same shall not have been delivered to the party to whom it is directed.” Semble, that such proviso does not apply to the first class of offences. If. however, it does, it is for the accused to prove the delivery, as a defence.</p> <p>3. An indictment under said section described the letter embezzled thus: “A letter enclosed in an envelope, addressed and directed as follows, that is to say. to M. D.. No. 122 W. 26 St., a more particular description of the manner in which said envelope was directed being to the jurors unknown, said envelope having been destroyed:” field, that it was competent to give evidence relating to a letter contained in an envelope directed “M. D„ No. 122 W. 26 Street.” the wrord “to” and the abbreviation “St.” not being on the envelope, the variances not being material.</p> <p>4. On a motion by the defendant for a new trial on an indictment, on the ground that the evidence failed to sustain a particular allegation in the indictment, it ought to appear that the objection was made at the trial in a manner sufficiently formal to attract attention.</p>

<p>Case No. 15,478.</p> <p>Jurisdiction or Federal Courts—Criminal In-formations.</p> <p>1. The proceeding by criminal information in the United States courts is. so far as the court is aware, with a single exception, entirely unknown.</p> <p>[Disapproved in Re Wilson, 18 Fed. 34.]</p> <p>2. The supreme court is the only court of the United States which derives any part of its power directly from the constitution. The circuit and district courts are, by authority of the constitution, creatures of the national legislature having such jurisdiction, and only such, as oon-gress has been pleased to confer upon them, and having no common law jurisdiction, though drawing upon the common law for modes of procedure and practice when necessary to carry into effect the jurisdiction given by statute.</p> <p>[Cited contra in U. S. v. Block, Case No. 14,-009.]</p> <p>3. The district courts of the territory although they may in a sense be said to be of general jurisdiction,- yet in the exercise of their jurisdiction, and the settlement of their practice as circuit and district courts of the United States, are subject to like limitations, with the circuit and district courts themselves. The act of 1789 to establish the judiciary system is an express grant in so many words. It gives jurisdiction over crimes and other matters in it expressly enumerated, and is also an example of grant by implication, for in the express grant of criminal jurisdiction is contained impliedly a grant of authority to summon and regulate grand juries. If the circuit and district courts of the United States have jurisdiction to proceed in criminal causes upon information that authority must spring from the constitution and statutes of the United States either expressly or by implication.</p> <p>4. The court construes that part of the Vth amendment to the United States constitution relating to prosecutions by indictment and information and the various acts of congress, and defines the powers of the federal courts in criminal cases, and the proper mode of proceeding.</p>

Debt on a duty-bond, returnable to this term; special bail. The defendant [R. Johns] appeared in proper person. on the last day of the sitting of the court, moved for, and obtained a rule on the defendant to plead instanter.

The defendant [Richard Johns] was indicted for casting away and destroying a vessel, on the high seas, of which' he was owner, with intent to prejudice the Baltimore Insurance Company, who had underwritten thereon. There were four counts, the two first of which charged him. generally, with casting away and destroying his vessel, and differed from each other only in this, that he is charged with having directed, or procured it to be done.

Indictment for violation of the national banking law (section 5209, Rev. St. U. S.).

The prosecutor, in custody in the Essex county jail, sued out a writ of habeas corpus in the United States district court. He had been arrested in the District of Columbia, and brought under a requisition from the governor of New Jersey to this state. It was claimed the arrest was irregular, etc. The opinion sets forth the main facts.

<p>[This was an indictment against George AY. Johnson, charged with offering a bribe for the purpose of procuring a vote.]</p>

Elisha Foote, the relator, is a judgment creditor of the defendant county upon railroad aid bonds. To an alternative mandamus the county pleaded, in its return, the act of the legislature of Missouri of March 8th, 1879, quoted in U. S. v. Lincoln Co. [Case No. 15,-503], in the manner set forth in the opinion of the court, to which return there was a demurrer.

On the 23d of November, 1808, an embargo bond was executed at the custom house of Petersburg, by Thomas Pearse, master of the ship Sally, of Philadelphia, and others, his sureties, to the United States, in the penalty of $46,300, upon the usual conditions, viz., that if the cargo of the said vessel should be relanded in the United States, the danger of the seas excepted, then the obligation to be void, otherwise, to remain in full force.

<p>Case No. 15,491.</p> <p>Perjury—False Sweating on Application for Naturalization—Evidence.</p> <p>On an application to a state court for the naturalization of a foreigner, J. testified, as a witness, that he was well acquainted with the applicant. It appeared that he was a total stranger to the applicant, and volunteered as a witness. Held, that this was sufficient evidence to warrant a conviction el J., on an indictment for perjury, under section 5392 of the Revised Statutes.</p>

<p>Case No. 15,493.</p> <p>Witness—Pardoneu Felon.</p> <p>A jterson who has .served out a sentence on conviction of felony may be restored by pardon to competency as a witness, but the jury is the sole judge of the credit to be given to his testimony.</p> <p>[Oited in Stetler's Case, Case No. 13,380; Logan v. U. S., 144 U. S. 203. 12 Sup. Ct 030.]</p> <p>[Cited in Curtis v. Cochran, 50 N. H. 244; State v. Blaisdell, 33 N. H. 393.]</p> <p>A pardon has the effect to restore a felon to competency as a witness. See State v. Foley, 15 Nev. 68, citing above case.</p>

It appears that some years hack Lieut. ICatesby Ap Rogers] Jones was absent on leave in Paris, and while standing on the Boulevard during one of the emeutes which occurred at the time was wounded by a stray bullet, fired bj one of the conflicting parties, and severely injured. On being taken home, he was attended by a French surgeon.

The prisoner [John H. Jones] was indicted for feloniously and piratically entering a certain Portuguese brig (by name,) and assaulting the captain, &c., putting them in bodily fear, and feloniously, &c., stealing, &c., out of said brig, and from the possession of said captain and mariners, certain enumerated articles.

Indictment for piracy. The district attorney, having stated to the court, that he could not safely try this case at the present term, on account of the absence of material witnesses, whose attendance at the next court, steps were taking to procure, directed the case, with the assent of the court, to be continued.

This was an indictment against these persons [Jones, Pickle, and Reese] for piracy, committed on the high seas. Jones was the first lieutenant, and the other defendants subaltern officers on board of the Revenge, a commissioned privateer commanded by Captain Butler. It was proved, that during her cruise, in November, 1812, she fell in with a Spanish ship on a voyage from Havana to Cadiz, which she1 had chased for upwards of an hour before she came up with her.

<p>Case No. 15,498.</p> <p>Customs Laws—Illegal Importations — Forfeitures—Repealing Statutes.</p> <p>1. Section 2 of St. March 3, 1823 [3 Stat. 781], which imposes a forfeiture of double the value of goods illegally imported, upon any one who knowingly receives them, is not confined to goods imported from territory adjoining the United States.</p> <p>2. Nor is that section confined to cases arising under statutes in operation when that section was enacted.</p> <p>3. The act of entering goods by a false invoice comes within the definition of an illegal “importation” under that section.</p> <p>[Cited in U. S. v. 2,419 Sheepskins, Case No. lti,5S9a.]</p> <p>4. That section was repealed by the Revised Statutes, which were passed June 22, 1874 [18 Stat. 186]. and not before, and then not retroactively; and this case, which was begun May 1, 1874, is not affected by the repeal.</p> <p>5. Congress appears, in Rev. St. § 5596, to express the opinion that this section had been repealed by some statute before 1874. and they probably had in mind the act of 1866; but this expression of opinion does not overrule U. S. v. Stockwell, 13 Wall. [80 U. S.] 431.</p>

This was a libel of information filed under the act of congress of July 13, 1861, which provides that “all goods and chattels, wares and merchandise coming from an in-surrectionary state or section into the other parts of the United States, and all proceeding to such state or section by land or water, shall, together with the vessel or vehicle conveying the same, be forfeited to the United States.” The Josie was a small steamer, formerly called the “Eagle.” She was captured…

The indictment [against Harriet and Hen-riette Jourdine] had two counts: (1) For keeping a disorderly house. (2) For keeping a bawdy house. •THE COURT (MORSFDD.

[This was a claim by Cayetano Juares for Yokaya, eight square leagues on Russian river, in Mendocino county, granted May 24, 1845, by Pio Pico to Cayetano Juares. Claim filed September 11, 1852, and rejected by the commission November 7, 1854. It is now heard upon appeal of the claimant to the district court.]

This was a petition for a mandamus requiring the removal of a cause commenced in the common pleas of Ottawa county, wherein John Lewis was plaintiff, and said A. J. White et al., the relators, were defendants, to the circuit court of the United States, it being claimed that all the steps required by the statutes of the United States for such removal had been taken, but that the common pleas refused to order such cause removed.

On demurrer to the return of the respondents to the alternative writ of mandamus.

<p>Case No. 16,502.</p> <p>Admiralty Jurisdiction' — Territorial Extent or Judicial Districts.</p> <p>[1. A seizure made on waters of New York Bay below low-water mark, on the Jersey shore, is within the jurisdiction of the district court of the Southern district of New York.] ,</p> <p>[Cited in Thp L. W. Eaton, Case No. 8,612; Hall v. Devoe Manuf’g Co., 14 Fed. 185.]</p> <p>L2. The actual boundary line of the Southern district of New York is coterminous with that of the state at the time of the creation of the district. The subsequent agreement entered into between New York and New Jersey respecting their boundary line in no way impairs or con-Hicts with any jurisdiction or power previously possessed by the United States; for congress, in assenting to that agreement, expressly provided that nothing therein should be construed to affect any right of jurisdiction of the United States in and over the islands or waters form- ¡ mg the subject of the agreement.] i</p>

Indictment for retailing spirituous liquors without license. The defendant justifled under a license from the coi-poration of Georgetown. contended that the corporation of Georgetown have either an exclusive or a concurrent right to license retailers and ordinary keepers, under the act of Maryland, of 1799. c. So. § 2. The general law was that the county courts should grant licenses.

Demurrer to petition. The defendant, formerly the Leavenworth, Pawnee, and Western Railroad Company, was one of the roads aided by the act of congress of July 1, 1862, and the amendatory act of July 2, 1864 [13 Stat. 356], relating to the Union Pacific Railroad, and other companies- therein named.

<p>On demurrer to plaintiff’s petition.</p>

[This was a criminal information against Edward Kaub for importing dutiable articles without paying the duties thereon. The cause was heard on a demurrer to the information.]

This was an indictment (against Louis Kazinski and othersl for violation of the second section of what is commonly known as the neutrality act of ISIS (3 Stat. 447).

<p>Indictment [against Michael Keefe] for an endeavour to commit a revolt on the high seas on board of the brig Prudent, Ellis master. Upon the trial it appeared, that the offence, if committed at all. was committed on board the brig Prudent, while lying in a foreign port; and the question was made, whether under these circumstances the indictment could be maintained.</p> <p>cited [U. S.v. Bevans] 3 Wheat. [16 U. S.] 387; [U. S. v. Wiltberger] 5 Wheat. [18 U. S.] 76, 103; U. S. v. Smith [Case No. 16,337]; U. S. v. Hamilton [Id. 15,291].</p>

<p>Case No. 15,510.</p> <p>Federal Courts—Power to Grant New Trials —Indictment—Variance—Evidence—Proof of Bank Notes—Amendment of Verdict—Judicial Notice.</p> <p>1. The courts of the United States have power <o grant new trials in criminal cases as well in those cases that are capital as in others.</p> <p>[Cited in U. S. v. Conner. Case No. 14,847; Sparf v. CJ. S., 15 Sup. Ct. 321.]</p> <p>[Cited in brief in Bell v. State, 48 Ala. 684. Cited in Bohanan v. State, 18 Neb. 77, 24 N. W. 399; Joy v. State, 14 Ind. 153; People v Cignarale, 110 N. Y. 31, 17 N. E. 135; People v. Dowling, 84 N. Y. 483; People v. Schmidt, 64 Cal. 262, 30 Pac. 815.]</p> <p>2. There is no constitutional inhibition to the exercise of this power.</p> <p>• 3. An instrument may be set out in an indictment according to its legal effect.</p> <p>4. But if words are used as descriptive of the instrument, though they might have been omitted, yet being stated, must be proved.</p> <p>[Cited in brief in Com. v. Dale (Mass.) 11 N. E. 536; Com. v. Perry, Id. 538.]</p> <p>5. A draft signed Jos. Johnson not admissible under a count stating it to be signed Joseph •liiliuson, president.</p> <p>6. Bank notes alleged to be inclosed in a letter stolen from the mail, need not be proved by a person who has seen the president and cashier write.</p> <p>7. Any one who deals in such notes, as cashiers of banks, &c. may prove their genuineness.</p> <p>8. The proof of a check drawn on the Bank of the United States and circulated as money, comes under the same rule.</p> <p>9. Where the jury have omitted to find on one of the counts, the court may permit such count to be discontinued.</p> <p>[Cited in U. S. v. Peterson. Case No. 16,037; U. S. v. O’Fallon, Id. 15,911.]</p> <p>[Cited in Sargent v. State, 11 Ohio, 474; State v Phinney, 42 Me. 387.]</p> <p>10. In such a case the verdict cannot be amended, as in a '■ase of special verdict, so as to enter not guilty on such count.</p> <p>[Cited in Wilson v. State, 20 Ohio, 30.]</p> <p>11. The court judicially know that the offence charged in the different counts, is the same, varied so as to meet the proof.</p> <p>12. And a conviction on any one of the counts, will be a bar to any future prosecution for the same offence.</p> <p>[Cited in Ex parte Bradley, 4S Ind. 553; WeiiiBorpflin v. State, 7 Blaekf. 192.]</p> <p>13. In such n case the number of counts, the offence being the same, does not increase or lessen the punishment.</p>

Indictment against the defendant [Shad-rick Keen], for forcibly obstructing and impeding one James Gooch, an officer of the customs, and an inspector, in the discharge of the duties of his office, against Act 1799, e. 128, § 71 [1 Story’s Laws, 633; 1 Stat. 678, c. 22]; Act March 3, 1815, c. 246, § 3 [2 Story's Laws, 1516; 3 Stat. 232, e. 94]; and Act March 3,1823, c. 186, § 3 [3 Story’s Laws, 1927; 3 Stat, 782, e. 59]. Plea, not guilty.

<p>Case No. 15,512.</p> <p>Offenses under Post-Office Laws — Buying Artici.e Stolen from Mails—Evidence—Presumptions.</p> <p>1. It is an offense under the post office law of 1825. 45th section [4 Stat. 114], to receive or tiuy any article that has been stolen from the mail, knowing it to have been so stolen.</p> <p>[Cited in Stockweli v. U. S., 13 Wall. (80 U. S.) 559.]</p> <p>2. To show that the article has been stolen, the conviction of the individuals who stole it. is sufficient. if the article be identified.</p> <p>3. When an individual is found in possession of stolen property, and fails to show how he acquired it. or gives inconsistent or contradictory accounts, how he came by it, the presumption of guilt is strengthened.</p>

The defendant [E. D. Kelly], the publisher of a newspaper, was indicted under section 3893 of the United States Revised Statutes, for knowingly mailing a newspaper containing an advertisement giving information where, how, and of whom, articles and things designed for the procuring of abortion and the prevention of conception could be obtained and made. The advertisement was set out in the indictment. It purports to be that of one Doctor W. K. Dougherty.

The defendant was found guilty upon one count in the indictment, the material words of which were as follows:—“Zeno Kelly, of New Bedford, in the district of Massachusetts. merchant, at New Bedford, and within the jurisdiction of this court, on the said -first day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty, he the said Kelly being then and there a citizen of the United States of America, did then and there aid and abet in fitting out, equipping,…

This was an indictment for endeavoring to make a revolt. The material facts proved in the cause were, that after the brig Lancaster had left the harbor of St. Thomas on her voyage to Porto Rico, Fowler, being ordered by the mate to do some necessary act, refused obedience to it. and sat down on the deck. The mate took hold of him to compel him to work; he seized the mate by the throat, and, after some struggling, he was overthrown and put into irons.

On the 2(ith of May. 1S37, W. B. Stokes. Richard C. Stockton.

<p>Indictment against the defendant [Edward Kendrick] for perjury, founded on the ninth section of the act of July 29, 1813, c. 34 [2 Story’s Laws, 1350; 3 Stat. 49, c. 35], granting a bounty to vessels engaged in the fisheries. ■The fifth and sixth sections of the act provide for the allowance and payment of the bounty. The seventh section enacts that the owner or owners of every fishing vessel, &c. his or their agent or lawful representative shall, previous to receiving the allowance made by the act, produce to the collector who is authorized to pay the same, the original agreement made with the fishermen employed on board of the vessel, “and also a certificate to be by him or them subscribed,’therein mentioning the particular days on which such vessel sailed and returned on the several voyages or fares she may have made in the preceding fishing season, to the truth of which he or they shall s.vear or affirm before the collector aforesaid.” The ninth section declares that any person who shall make any false declaration on oath or affirmation, required by this act, being duly convicted, shall be deemed guilty of perjury. &c. The indictment alleged (and so the fact appeared at the trial,) that the certificate was signed by Theophilus Crowell, the owner of the vessel, and that the oath was taken by the defendant as agent of the owner.</p> <p>objected that under these circumstances the indictment was not within the contemplation of the statute.</p>

Replevin for one hundred and sixteen pieces of kerseys. The title of the United States, was founded on an agreement, bearing date the 15th February, 1815. substantially as follows: “Thomas Parker agrees to furnish the commissary general of the United States, with a sufficient quantity of gray and white kerseys, part of which are now finished, and the materials for the remainder are now on hand; to pay the debt due the commissary, and the notes held by Robert Earp, altogether…

Indictment [against James Kenneally] for having in his possession, and with intent to utter and pass, certain counterfeit notes of the United States government.

<p>Case No. 16,524.</p> <p>Competency op Witness — Religious Belief — Credibility— Trespass—Pleading and Proof.</p> <p>1. A witness to be competent must believe in God, and in rewards and punishments.</p> <p>2. If these are inflicted in this life, according to his faith, he is competent.</p> <p>3. But in such case he may be less under that high moral influence, which is supposed to result from a belief in a state of rewards and punishments in the life to come. This may go to his credibility.</p> <p>4. In trespass, where a day is laid in the declaration, and from such day to the commencement of the action, divers trespasses were committed. one trespass, but not divers, may be proved prior to the day named. But divers may be proved within the time laid.</p>

Indictment for serving on board a vessel employed in transporting a slave from the island of St. Thomas, to the island of Cuba;. contrary to the act of the 10th of May, 1800. See 3 [Bior. & D. Laws] 382, § 2 [2 Stat. 70], .

<p>Case No. 15,526.</p> <p>Internal Revenue Laws — Interpretation — “Cattle Broker” — Licenses — Farmer Purchasing and Selling Stock.</p> <p>1. In a suit by the United States to recover ¡i fine for pursuing the business of a cattle broker, without having procured a license, it must appear that the person sued dealt in cattle or bogs as his principal business.</p> <p>2. Occasionally buying and selling such stock, in connection with his main pursuit as a farmer, does not bring him within the operation of the statute requiring a person following the business of a cattle broker to obtain a license.</p> <p>3. The term “business.” as used in the statute, must be limited in its meaning to the main or principal occupation of an individual, and can not extend to selling or buying as merely incidental to another pursuit.</p> <p>4. A farmer purchasing stock to consume the products of his farm, though with the intention of selling it, is not a cattle broker within the siatute.</p> <p>5. Revenue laws should be rigidly enforced, lint not strained to embrace acts not fairly within their scope.</p>

<p>Case No. 15,527.</p> <p>Postmasters’ Accounts—Application of Balances—Official Bonds—Liability of Sureties—Limitation of Actions.</p> <p>1. Where a postmaster in a quarterly return shows a balance in his hands, the postmaster-general may apply the balance reported in a subsequent return to the extinguishment of the previous balance</p> <p>2. And where, in an account current continued for years, the postmaster-general thus makes the application of balances reported by a postmaster, any deficiency on final settlement due from the postmaster will be chargeable to and appear in the last quarterly account of the postmaster; and unless two years have elapsed from the return of the last quarterly account to the time of bringing suit on the postmaster’s bond, the.sureties in the bond are not protected from liability by the provision of the act of congress requiring suit to be brought within two yenrs. or in case of neglect so to sue, the sureties not to lie liable.</p>

The indictment [against Henry Kessler] contains four counts; The first charges, in substance, a robbery from the captain of the vessel called L’Eclair; second, stealing the same property from and out of the vessel belonging to certain persons unknown; third, with piratically running away with the vessel and with the goods, &e. belonging to persons unknown.

<p>Case No. 15,528a.</p> <p>Indian Country—Alaska—Offensb against Indian—Jurisdiction of District Court.</p> <p>Tbe territory of Alaska is not “Indian country,” within the meaning of that term as used in the acts of congress; and, consequently, the district court of the district of Alaska has jurisdiction to try an Indian for an offense committed by him against another Indian in such territory, prior to the act of March 3, 1885 [23 Stat. 385].</p> <p>[NOTE. Subsequently the charge to the jury was delivered stating the difference between murder of the first degree, murder of the second degree, and manslaughter, and the difference commented upon. Case No. 15,528b. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of manslaughter. and the prisoner was sentenced to a term of 10 years’ imprisonment and a fine of $100. The cause was taken to the circuit court on a writ of error. The district court was then directed to allow the plaintiff to move for a new trial, and if, on the hearing of the same, it did not appear that Kie was present, to grant the same, but otherwise to deny the motion, and give judgment against him. 27 Fed. 351.]</p>

Indictment for murder. [A motion to discharge the prisoner, upon the ground that the court had no jurisdiction, was denied. Case No. 15,528a.]

1 [This was a .proceeding against the defendant for conveying or causing to be conveyed, over a post route, for hire, a letter to William Smith, Esq., from Boston to New York, on the 21st of February. The said William Smith, Esq., is a man of straw, made up for the purposes of the suit.

<p>Case No. 16,633.</p> <p>Internal Revenue— Illegal Assessment — Capacity of a Distillery.</p> <p>1. Where the producing capacity of a distillery had been determined by a survey, in accordance with section 10 of the act of July 20, 1868 (15 Stat. 129). and the assessor subsequently, without any new survey being held, determined that the producing capacity was greater, and assessed the distillery accordingly, and a suit was brought, on the distiller’s bond to recover the excess of the assessment above that which would have been otherwise assessed.</p> <p>2. The assessment was void, and the excess could not be recovered.</p> <p>3. Under that section, when the capacity of a distillery, as determined from the original survey, is sought to be changed by the government, it can only be done by a new survey, directed by the commissioner of internal revenue.</p>

Indictment [against Thomas King, a negro' slave] for highway robbery of John Graham, and taking from him his watch. Upon the trial, Mr. Simms and Mr. Swann, for the prisoner, called for evidence of the place being a highway. offered to prove by parol evidence, that it has been long used as such, and to prove by the records of this court, that this court has appointed an overseer of the road.

<p>Case No. 15,535.</p> <p>Counterfeitin'»—Presumption prom Possession of Tools—Indictment and Proof—Intent.</p> <p>1. On a charge of counterfeiting coin, proof of tlie fact that a quantity of spurious coins, with tools and instruments for the manufacture thereof. was found in the defendant’s possession, will warrant the presumption of his guilty agency, unless negatived by other facts in the case.</p> <p>2. On an indictment under the section of the act of congress [4 Stat. 121], providing a penalty against any one who shall falsely make, forge, or counterfeit any silver coin, &c., it must appear that it was the intention of the party, in making such coin, fraudulently to pass them as genuine.</p> <p>3. If it appear that the counterfeit coins were made for any other purpose, though that purpose may not be defensible in a moral aspect, the party is not guilty of the offense contemplated by the statute.</p> <p>[Cited in U. S. v. Otey, 31 Fed. 70.]</p>

This was an action of indebitatus assump-sit for moneys had and received to the use of the United States. Held: that they are bound by the act. The consequence which it is supposed must flow from this construction, namely, that the United States will be in a worse condition than the other creditors, if not within the act, as thereby, the property will be assigned, and their remedy lie only against the person and future effects of the bankrupt,…

<p>Case No. 15,637..</p> <p>Slave Trade—Remission op Forfeitures.</p> <p>Forfeiture under the act of congress prohibiting the importation of negroes after January 1, 1808. may be remitted by this court in cases of extreme. hardship.</p> <p>[Cited in Furniss v. The Magoun, Case No. 5.163.)</p>

<p>Case No. 15,538.</p> <p>Federal Jurisdiction — Larcent at Military Posts—General Verdict.</p> <p>[1. Jurisdiction to legislate over territory ceded by a state to the United States for a military post, as in the case of West Point, N. Y., becomes exclusive by force of the cession alone, and is in no wise impaired by a reservation to the state of a right tc send process within the limits of the territory in pursuit of fugitives.]</p> <p>[2. Therefore a larceny committed at West Point is punishable by the United States courts under the crimes act of 1790, par. 16 (1 Stat. 116).]</p> <p>[S. On a general verdict of guilty, the evidence will be applied to any sufficient count in the indictment, and the remaining counts will I»* wholly disregarded.]</p>

This was an action brought on the 15th day of September, 1838, on a bond given to the United States on the 30th day of January, 1838, for the liberties in the gaol yard in Portland, in Maine district. Plea, the general issue, with liberty to give special matter in evidence.

The defendant [Josiah X. Knowles] was indicted and tried at the June' term of 1864, for murder on the high seas. The facts of the case sufficiently appear in the charge of the court.

The cause was heard upon a demurrer to the bill, which prayed an injunction to prohibit the defendants from continuing the business of letter carriers, in which they were engaged in the city of Philadelphia.

This was a motion in arrest of judgment. The defendant [Solomon Kohnstamm] was' indicted and convicted, under the first section of the act of March 3,1823 (3 Stat 771), of the offence of presenting false papers to a disbursing officer of the government, in relation to an account or claim, with intent to defraud the government, knowing at the time, that the papers were false.

This was an action brought for the recovery of a penalty, alleged to have been incurred by the intestate in his life time, for a violation of the revenue law. The defendant [Henry Korn] admitted that the penalty was incurred by the intestate, but denied that it was recoverable from his administrator. cited the act of March 2, 1779, -§§ 50, 65 (1 Story’s Laws. 617, 630 [1 Stat. 665, 676]).

Indictment [against Adolphe La Coste] on the second and third sections of the act of 20th of April. 1818, c. 86 [3 Story’s Laws 1C9S; 3 Slat. 450, c. 91], against the slave… Held: sold and disposed of as slaves. At the trial the cause turned principally on questions of fact. contended that the crime, if at all, was committed within the port of New York, and was exclusively cognizable in the circuit court of the United States for the judicial district comprehending that port.

<p>Case No. 16,649.</p> <p>Mandamus to Levy Tax—Duty of County Court in Respect to Collection— Return.</p>

This was a libel against the schooner La Jeune Eugenie [Raibaud and Labatut, claimants] for being engaged in the slave trade. By an act passed by the congress of the United States on the 2d of March, 1807, the importation of slaves into any port of the United States was prohibited after the 1st of June. 180S; the time limited by the constitution of the United States, beyond which slaves could not be imported.

Indictment [against William Lambell] for' opposing Clement Venable, in the execution of his duty as a constable. objected to parol testimony of the warrant being given, because it is matter of record. Peake, Ev. 19.

<p>Case No. 15,555.</p> <p>Insanity—Burden of Proof—Practice.</p> <p>1. Upon an inquisition of insanity upon a motion for a new trial after' verdict of guilty of perjury, the question is the same as if raised when the prisoner was called to plead.</p> <p>[Cited in U. S. v. De Quilfeldt, 5 Fed. 279.]</p> <p>2. Upon such an inquisition the question to be decided is, whether the defendant was incapable of comprehending the dangerous position in which he was placed, and of taking intelligent measures to meet it.</p> <p>3. The burden of proof of insanity is upon the defendant, yet he should have the benefit of any reasonable doubt.</p> <p>4. In an inquisition of insanity the counsel for the prisoner should open and close the case to the jury.</p> <p>NOTE. On calling the matter for trial, the question arose as to which side should open the case. The court ruled that counsel for the prisoner should open and close the case to the jury. The question has been decided both ways in England, and seems to have been left in doubt. See 1 Euss. Crimes (9th Ed.) p. 29.</p>

<p>Case No. 15,556.</p> <p>Federal Criminal Jurisdiction — Offences undek Postal Laws — Embezzlement — Evidence—Indictment—Statutory Words.</p> <p>1. The federal government has no criminal jurisdiction except what is given by statute.</p> <p>[Cited in U. S. v. New Bedford Bridge, Case No. 15,807; U. S. v. Coppersmith, 4 Fed. 205; U. S. v. Gibson, 47 Fed. 834; U. S. v. Mitchell, 58 Fed. 997.]</p> <p>2. An offence described in the words of the statute is, generally, sufficient.</p> <p>[Cited in U. S. v. O’Sullivan, Case No. 15.-974: U. S. v. Patterson. Id. 10.011; U. S. v. Sander, id. 16,219; U. S. v. Ballard, Id. 14,506; U. S. v. Atkinson, 34 Fed. 317.] •</p> <p>[Cited in Buck v. State. 1 Ohio St. 64; State v. Abbott, 31 N. H. 439. Cited in brief in State v. Smith, 63 Vt. 205, 22 Atl. 604.]</p> <p>3. Offences under the postoffice law are not felonies. They are misdemeanors; and, in such cases, less nicety in the form, is required, than in indictments for felonies in England.</p> <p>[Cited in U. S. v. Baugh, 1 Fed. 787.]</p> <p>4. It is not necessary to give a particular description of a letter charged to have been secreted and embezzled by a postmaster, nor to describe the bank notes, particularly, inclosed in the letter.</p> <p>[Cited in U. S. v. Falkenhainer, 21 Fed. 627.]</p> <p>5. But if either the letter or the notes be described in the indictment, they must be proved as laid.</p> <p>[Cited in U. S. v. Fuller (N. M.) 20 Pac. 177.]</p> <p>6. It is enough to show that the letter came into the hands of the postmaster, in the words of the statute, without showing where it was mailed, and on what route it was conveyed.</p> <p>[Cited in II. S. v. Fuller (N. M.) 20 Pac. 179.]</p> <p>7. The evidence of an accomplice is competent, but it should always be received with caution.</p>

[Appeal from the district court of the United States for the district of Pennsylvania.] This is an action of debt upon a bond dated the 2d of February, 1809, in the penalty of $4.002. The case agreed states that in 1808 the brig Eliza was seized by the collector of the Delaware district, and libelled for violations of the embargo laws ■ passed in that year.

<p>Case No. 15,669.</p> <p>United States—Contbactb—Property Received in Discharge op Debt—Authority to Purchase Lands.</p> <p>1. The government of the United States has power to make a contract, as incident to its sovereignty. It may compromise a suit, and receive real and other property in discharge of the debt in trust, and sell the same.</p> <p>I Cited in Dikes v. Miller, 25 Tex. Supp. 281.]</p> <p>2. The solicitor of the treasury is charged with this duty.</p> <p>3. Such a procedure does not come under any authority to purchase lands.1</p> <p>4. This cannot be exercised except under authority of law.</p>

Suit upon the .trustee process of Massachusetts by statute of 1794, c. 65 [1 Story’s Laws, 630; 1 Stat 676, c. 22]. The only questions in the cause arose upon the answers of the trustees.

<p>[Claim of T. O. Larkin to a ranch on Feather river, originally granted to ■ one Flugge. On objections by the United States to the survey.]</p>

Claim for eleven leagues of land on the west bank of the Sacramento river, confirmed by the board, and appealed by the United States. [This was a claim by Thomas O. Larkin and John S. Missroon for the .Timeno rancho in Colusi and Yuba counties, containing 48,-S54.2G acres.]

<p>Claim for ten leagues of land in Colusi county, confirmed by the board, and appealed by the United States.</p> <p>[This was a claim by Francis Larkin and others for the rancho de Larkin, granted' December 15, 1844, by Manuel Micheltorena, claim filed March 24, 1852, confirmed by the commission April 25, 1854, containing 44,-864.22 acres.]</p>

This case came before the court on a motion to quash an indictment [against Ramon S. Latorre].

<p>Case No. 16,569.</p> <p>Shipping—Public Regulations—Penalties— Lien.</p> <p>1. By the second section of the act of congress approved July 7, 1838 [5 Stat. 304], entitled “An act to provide for the better security of the lives of passengers on board of vessels propelled in whole or in part by steam,” no forfeiture of the boat is declared, and no espress lien given on the boat for the penalty, in case of a violation.</p> <p>2. The expression in the second section, “for which sum or sums the steamboat or vessel so engaged shall be liable,” is simply used to give a remedy against the boat by libel, and was not intended to give a lien expressed or implied.</p> <p>3. Where a steamboat violated the said second section, but subsequent to such violation, was seized and sold under the Missouri “boat and vessel act,” by material men; held, that the United States had no lien or claim, that could overreach the claim of the material men, who had now acquired title to the vessel.</p>

<p>Case No. 15,569a.</p> <p>Amen Inhabitants of Tekkitoky—Admission as State—Citizenship.</p> <p>Inhabitants of the territory of Orleans became citizens of Louisiana and of the United States by the admission of Louisiana into the Union.</p> <p>[See Boyd v. State of Nebraska, 143 U. S. 135, 12 Sup. Ct. 375.]</p> <p>NOTE. In pursuance of this decision, a considerable number of persons, born in the dominions of the king of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, who had resided in Louisiana, under the territorial government, ceased to be considered by the marshal as British subjects, and as liable to the restrictions imposed on alien enemies.</p>

<p>Case No. 15,570.</p> <p>Retarding the Mails—Evidence.</p>

<p>Case No. 16,578.</p> <p>Forgery—Custom House Papers—Owner’s Oath —Indictmekt.</p> <p>1. Under section 1 of the act of April 5, 1866 (14 Stat. 12), now section 5418 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, which provides a penalty for the forging of “any bid, proposal, guarantee, official bond, public record, affidavit, or other writing, for the purpose of defrauding the United States,” the words “other writing” includes an owner’s oath required to be taken before making an entry of goods at the custom house, and an import entry, and an importer’s bond.</p> <p>[Cited in U. S. v. Huggett. 40 Fed. 642; U. S. v. Albert, 45 Fed. 557.]</p> <p>[Quoted in Edgeeomb v. His Creditors (Nev.) 7 Pac. 540.]</p> <p>2. The fact that section 3 of the act of March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. 739), now section 5445 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, punishes as a misdemeanor all acts done in effecting an entry of goods, furnishes no reason why forgery of writings used in entering goods at the custom house should not be punished under section 1 of the act of April 5, 1866.</p> <p>3. It is not necessary that an indictment founded on section 1 of the .act of 1866, and alleging the forgery of writings used in entering goods at the custom house, should allege the existence of the goods mentioned in the writings.</p> <p>[For further proceedings under this indictment, see Case No. 15,573.]</p>

<p>[This was an indictment against Charles L. Lawrence upon the charge of forgery. Demurrer to the indictment was previously overruled. Case No. 15,572.]</p>

<p>Case No. 15,574.</p> <p>Pleading—Several Liability—New Yoke Piiac-tioe—Exhausting Remedies.</p> <p>1. A bond to the United States, signed and sealed by W., G., C., and M., and acknowledged by each as his act, recited that W. and &., composing the firm of A. & Sons, as principals, and C. and M., as sureties, were held, &e., jointly and severally, to the Un.ted States, in the sum of $9,000, and was conditioned that the firm of A. & Sons should pay all taxes assessed upon tobacco manufactured by the firm. W. and C. died, and H. was appointed administratrix of W. The United States then brought suit on the bond against H., as administratrix of W., and G. and M.. claiming a judgment for $9,000. On demurrer to the complaint, by H,, held that, as the complaint set forth a several obligation by the obligors, it was good, because, by the law of New York, a several liability could be enforced, in one suit, against all the defendants.</p> <p>2. This was so, although H. was sued as ad-ministratrix, and the others as individuals. •</p> <p>3. The bond was not the obligation of the firm, and that, therefore, it was not necessary to exhaust all remedies against G., as surviving partner of the firm, before suing on the bond.</p>

The'first count of this indictment charged that the defendant [M. S P. Laws], on a certain day, at Boston, did • secrete and embezzle a certain letter, then and there directed to Sarah E. Dalzell, in the words and letters following. “Mrs. Sarah E. Dalzell, Ells-worth, Maine,” with which he was then and there intrusted, and which had come to his possession, and was then and there intended to be conveyed by post, containing a certain bank-note for the payment of two dollars,…

Motion to set aside a verdict of guilty and for a new trial. Charles G. Learned and Frederick S. Ayres were brought to trial upon an indictment for issuing an unstamped agreement. Under the instructions given, the jury found a verdict of guilty. The defendants now moved to set aside the verdict, and for a new trial, on the ground of refusal to give certain charges to the jury, and of misdirection in the charges which were given.

<p>[This is an indictment against John Leathers.]</p>

This is a bill in equity in the circuit court, filed by the direction of the attorney general, to set aside patents issued by the executive officers of the United States to the defendant company. The ground of the bill is that the patents were issued without authority „of law and are void. The substantial question in the cause is whether the defendant company is entitled to the land patented to it.

This was an indictment of [Edmund Leckie] the master of the American bark Ithona, under the act of 1S35, c. 40, § 3 [4 Stat. 770], for beating and wounding the second mate. [See Case No. 5,023.] At the arraignment, the counsel for the defendant appeared and offered, as the attorney of the defendant, to enter a plea of not guilty, and claimed the right to have the trial proceed, in the defendant’s absence.

<p>Case No. 15,587.</p> <p>Army Officer — Pay — Volunteer Commission.</p> <p>An officer of the regular army of the United States was ordered, during the Florida war. to command a company of Indians, and was commissioned as captain of volunteers, for which he received pay as such captain. On his return to his regiment, he received full pay for the time he was absent in command of the Indians. He refunded all but the difference between his pay ns a regular army officer and the pay he received as an officer of volunteers. The United States claimed that he was only entitled to his pay as a volunteer officer. Held, that he was not barred from claiming the pay proper annexed by law to his commission in the regular army.</p>

<p>Case No. 15,588.</p> <p>Accomplice as Witness—Immunity from Prosecution—Bona Fides.</p> <p>1. An accomplice may be used as a witness, from the necessity of the ease, in many instances.</p> <p>[Cited in U. S. v. Hinz. 35 Fed. 280.]</p> <p>2. And if so used, and from his testimony, he appears to have acted in giving testimony in good faith, the government can not further prosecute him.</p> <p>[Cited in U. S. v. Ford. 99 U. S. 605.]</p> <p>[Cited in Nickelson v. Wilson, 60 N. Y. 367.]</p> <p>3. It is bound in honor to discontinue the prosecution. In testifying he implicated himself, and although the person on whose trial he gave evidence was acquitted, that does not alter the case of the witness. If he acted in good faith, as the court think h« did, in giving testimony, he should be discharged.</p> <p>[Cited in State v. Graham, 41 N. J. Law, 20.]</p> <p>4. If the prosecuting attorney shall not enter a nolle prosequi against him. which the court think is the better course, they will continue the case until a pardon shall be procured.</p> <p>[Cited in U. S. v. Hinz, 35 Fed. 280.]</p> <p>[Cited in Dawley v. State, 4 Ind. 129.]</p> <p>UNITED STATES v. LEE. See Case No. 922.</p>

Edgar Thompson] against the members of the board of supervisors of Lee county, Iowa, for contempt in disobeying a writ of mandamus from this court.

Claim for five leagues of land in Sonoma county, confirmed by the board, and appealed by the United States. [This was a claim by Jacob P. Leese for the Rancho Huichicha. Claim filed April 6, 1S52. Confirmed by the commission April 18, 1853.]

<p>Indictment for keeping a faro table, at common law, and on the act of assembly of Maryland, 1797, c. 110.</p>

<p>Case No. 15,592.</p> <p>Assignment—Future Advances—Rights of Thikd Parties.</p> <p>An assignment of property given to secure advances already made, and which may be made, is valid as to all advances except such as are made after the liens of third persons have intervened.</p> <p>NOTE. A judgment as well as a mortgage may be taken to secure future responsibilities; but it seems that responsibilities, incurred after a subsequent judgment to a third person, will not be covered by the prior judgment. Brink-erhoff v. Marvin, 5 Johns. Ch. 324. Where a creditor has separate judgments against each of two partners, the partnership property is bound to the same extent as if there had been one judgment for the whole against both partners. Id. The lien of a judgment is good for the interest which may accrue on it as well as for the principal debt. Sims v. Campbell, 1 McCord. Eg. 56; Winslow v. Ancrum, Id. 105. Judgments have no lien upon money. Hunt-ingdon v. Spann, Id. 167. A judgment is no lien upon an equitable interest. Jackman v. Hallock, 1 Ham. (Ohio) 320; Manley v. Hunt, Id. 258. Where lands have been omitted out of a contract by mistake, which is afterwards corrected by a court of chancery, whether judgments obtained against the vendor, after the contract was made, but before its correction, Save a lien upon it. amere. Pierce v. Brass-field. 9 Ala. 573. A judgment recovered against the devisee of real estate, which estate is charged by the testator with the payment of a joint and several note given by such devisee and the testator, upon which such judgment is obtained, is at law, junior and subordinate, as a lien upon the real estate of the devisee, to a prior judgment against such devisee for his individual indebtedness. Smith v. Wyckoff, 11 Paige, 49. A judicial lien when barred by lapse, of time, cannot be revived so as to have a retrospective effect prejudicial to the rights of others. Coombs v. Jordan. 3 Bland. 324: Post v. Mackall. Id. 517; Cape Sable Co’s Case. Id. 660. Where a judgment has abated, by death, during the continuance of the lien, the plaintiff, or bis representatives, may come in under a creditor’s suit, and have the benefit of such lien without reviving at law. Coombs v. Jordan. Id. 326. Where the execution of a judgment has been suspended, the lien continues its limited time after such suspension. Id. The bringing of an action of debt upon a judgment, amounts to a virtual abandonment of any then existing lien arising therefrom. Cape Sable Co.’s Case, Id. 660. The general lien of a judgment creditor, upon the lands of his debtor, is subject to all equities which existed against such lands, in favor of third persons, at the time of the recovery of the judgment. And the court of chancery will so control the legal lieD of the judgment creditor as to restrict it to the actual interest of the judgment debtor in the property; so as fully to protect the rights of those who have a prior equitable interest in such property, or in the proceeds thereof. Bu-chan v. Sumner, 2 Barb. Ch. 165. It is a settled principle in the court of chancery that the general lien of judgment, upon the real estate of a debtor, is subject to all the equities which existed against such real estate in favor of third persons, at the time of the recovery of such judgment. And a court of equity will so control the legal lien of the .mdgment creditor as to protect the rights of those who have prior equitable interests in, or liens on, such property. ov the proceeds thereof. Wilkes v. Harper, Id. 338.</p>

The plaintiffs declared in the couijt below, upon a bond executed by the defendants to the plaintiffs, on the 22d day of August, 1816, in the penal sum ot 5,000 dollars, with the following condition. “The condition of this obligation is such, that whereas the above bounden Lieut. James W. Lent, Jr., has been appointed a battalion quarter-master in the corps of artillery, and has accepted said appointment. Now, if the said Lieut.

<p>Case lío. 15,594.</p> <p>Customs Duties—Evasion or Laws—Leaden Busts.</p> <p>[It seems that busts made of lead are free of duty under the act of 1832 (4 Stat. 583), under the clause providing for “ail busts of marble, metai or piaster,” although they in fact were imported fo” use as iead and were put into that form to avoid the duty of 3 cents a pound on “lead in pigs, bars and sheets.”]</p>

3 [This was a bill filed by the United States against [Edwin M.] Lewis, the assignee in bankruptcy of Jay Cooke & Co., to subject the assets of the private estates of certain of the bankrupt partners to the payment of the debt due to the United States by the firm of Jay Cooke, McCullough & Co., in which the said bankrupts were partners. The case was heard on bill and answer. A cross bill had also been filed by the trustee.

[Action by the United States against Harrison J. Libby and others.] Debt, upon a guaranty conditioned to secure the payment of a sum offered the United States in compromise of its claim for taxes, fines and penalties. Plea, performance, in that the offer of compromise had not been accepted, but had been rejected. The cause was submitted upon an agreed statement of facts.

This was an indictment against the defendant [Cyrus Libby], belonging to Scarborough, in this state, as master of the brig Porpoise, a vessel owned by citizens of the United States.

The defendant [William Liddle] is charged in the indictment; with an assault and battery committed on Don Ignatius Peror De Lima, attached to the legation of Spain, and executing the duties of secretary of legation. The first count states him to be a public minister of Spain, viz., a gentleman attached to the legation of Spain, and executing the duties of secretary of legation: the other counts are general, and state him to be a public minister.

[Appeal from the district court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts.] This was a case of prize, and the case came before the court upon an appeal from a decree of the district court [Case No. 8,-348]. Capture was made on the 3d of July, 1802, by the United States gunboat Quaker City; and the vessel and her cargo were sent into this district for adjudication.

<p>Case No. 15,599.</p> <p>UNITED STATES (LILIENTHAL’S TOBACCO v.). See Case No. 16,106a.</p>

These claims were both confirmed by the board, appealed by the United States, and tried together before the district court. [These were claims by José Y. Limantour for four square leagues in San Francisco county, supposed to extend south of California street. Grant claimed from Manuel Micheltorena to Limantour February 27, 1843.

Indictment [against Adam Lindsay] for selling spirituous liquor to slaves on Sunday, contra formam statuti. The defendant, being a shopkeeper, sold liquors to slaves on Sundays, and kept a disorderly house.

This was an action of debt [against Jonathan WT. Lindsey and others] on a customhouse bond, to secure the amount of duties on goods imported into the port of Bristol. The bond was dated on the 2d of July, 1812, and was in the usual form. It appeared in evidence, that the vessel arrived at Bristol on the evening of the 30th of June; that on the 2d of July, the vessel was duly entered at the custom-house, and began to discharge her cargo.

The goods in this case had been delivered to the claimant on his execution of a bond with surety, approved conformably to the provisions of the eighty-ninth section of the act of 1799 [1 Stat. 695]. Judgment of condemnation having been afterwards rendered, the amount of the bond was paid into court. A commissioner was appointed to distribute the fund thus in court.

<p>Case No. 16,606.</p> <p>Payment—Application— Sureties — Action on Official Bond—Previous Defalcation.</p> <p>1. The general doctrine as to the application of payments, is, that if the debtor fail to apply them, the government may do so. If both fail, the law will make Lhe application, as the principles of justice shall require.</p> <p>[Cited in U. S. Bicket, Case No. 14,590.]</p> <p>[Cited in State v. Sooy. 39 N. J. Law, 547.]</p> <p>2. Where different sets of sureties are concerned, this rule does not govern.</p> <p>[Cited in brief in McCune v. Belt, 45 Mo. 176.]</p> <p>3. Sureties are only bound, on a receiver of public moneys’ bond, that he shall pay over all moneys received, after the execution of the bond.</p> <p>4. They are not bound for any previous defalcation.</p> <p>5. And the government can not bind them, by the exercise of any supposed power, to make application of the payments made.</p> <p>6. If the sureties are at all responsible, they must be made so by strict law.</p> <p>7. As between different sureties, the court will apply the payments so as to avoid injustice. And this they can do from the face of the transcript.</p> <p>8. Where the payments exceed the receipts in any one quarter, the excess shall be applied to the payment of the previous quarter, • though such quarter be prior to the date of the bond.</p> <p>9. Where a general payment has been made some years after expiration of the bond, the payment must be applied, as stated on the transcript, to discharge, pro tanto, the general balance.</p> <p>[NOTE. For the opinion of the supreme court in this case upon certificate of division of opinion, 15 Pet. (40 U. S.) 290. Upon a writ of error in the supreme court, the judgment of the circuit court was reversed. 1 How. (42 U. S.) 104.]</p>

These were three libels of information against fishing vessels, alleging that they became forfeited by violations of law in obtaining the fishing bounty. The owners did not put in a claim and give stipulations for costs, as required by the admiralty rule, to entitle them to be recognized as parties, and there was, consequently, no appearance by any claimant.

[Appeal from the district court of the United States for the district of Virginia.] The schooner Little Charles, with her tackle, apparel, and furniture, was seized in the port of Norfolk, in ISOS, as forfeited to the United States, by reason of an alleged violation of the embargo laws.

[This was a libel of forfeiture filed against the brig Little Ann and cargo on the ground of attempting an unlawful exportation of merchandise from the United States.]

This court, at the May term, 1818, having reversed the decree of the district court, dismissing the libel against the Little Charles, and rendered a decree of forfeiture against the vessel, a monition, issued against Charles Grice, owner, and Warren Ashley, requiring them to appear at the next term thereafter, and show cause why a decree should not be rendered against them, for the sum of money expressed in the obligation.

This was an application by one Samuel Marlor, founded on a petition and affidavits, showing that he was imprisoned as a witness in behalf of the United States, and praying that he might be discharged from such imprisonment on his own recognizance or on reduced bail.

Indictment [against Richard B. Lloyd] for assault and battery on Moses Hepburn, with intent to kill him.

This indictment charged that Lyman Lock-man, on the 20th of April, 1848, “on the high seas, did wilfully and corruptly burn the ship William Thompson, of New Bedford, he, the said Lockman, then and there being a mariner on board thereof, and belonging to said ship William Thompson.

The defendant [Lea Logan] was indicted for distilling and retailing, under section 44 of the act of July 20,1868 [15 Stat. 142], without haying paid the special tax as a distiller or retail liquor dealer. O'Connell Russell, the first witness, testified that he had contracted with defendant to deliver to a certain mill near the distillery for the defendant, some corn, for which defendant was to give h’m one gallon of whiskey for each bushel of corn so left at the mill.

<p>[Error to the district court of the United States for the Southern district of New York.]</p> <p>At law.</p>

<p>Case No. 15,627.</p> <p>Internal Revenue — Bonding Pkopertt — Payment into Court.</p> <p>1. Where property was seized as forfeited for an alleged violation of the internal revenue law, and the claimant applied for a delivery to him of the same upon a bond, hold that, as the application was one for a favor, terms might be imposed.</p> <p>2. The property might be delivered to the claimant, on his giving stipulations in the appraised value of the property, less the amount of tax due on ii, paying this latter amount in money into the registry of the court.</p>

<p>Case No. 15,628.</p> <p>Fraudulent Conveyances—Levy op Execution.</p> <p>1. On a bill to set aside a fraudulent conveyance of land levied on by execution, under a judgment, the court will not enquire whether there was not personal property on which the marshal should hare first levied.</p> <p>[Cited in brief in Stewart v. Stringer, 41 Mo. 402.]</p> <p>2. Where such sale has been fraudulent, the court will set the conveyance aside, and order the land to be sold, subject to the lien of the original vender.</p>

<p>Case No. 16,630.</p> <p>Coukts—Jurisdiction—Slave—Consent.</p> <p>This court has no jurisdiction to try a slave for larceny, but will quash the indictment and send him to a justice of the peace to be tried. By consent of parties the court will try the issue, whether slave or not.</p>

<p>Case No. 15,631.</p> <p>Trial — Term of Court — Jury—Bystanders — Challenoe to Arrat—Escape of Defendant During Trial.</p> <p>1. Section 746 of the Revised Statutes provides, that, when a trial has been commenced and is in progress before a jury or the court, it shall not be stayed or discontinued by the arrival of the time fixed by law for another session of the court. On the trial of au indictment, after several jurors had been called and challenged, and three had been found competent and sworn, the court, on the last day of the term, directed that the trial proceed on the following day, which was the first day of the succeeding term. It so proceeded, and, after a conviction, it was, on a motion in arrest of judgment, fold, that the trial had been commenced and was in progress, although a full jury was not empanel-led before the term ended.</p> <p>2. Section 804 of the Revised Statutes provides, that, when the panel is exhausted, the marshal, by the order of the court, shall return jurymen from the bystanders, sufficient to complete the panel. Under such an order, the marshal summoned as jurymen persons who were not in the court room, or about the court house, when such order was made, or when they were summoned, but they were present in court when they were returned by the marshal as present, and when their names were placed on the panel and their ballots placed in the wheel. Held, that they became bystanders, w'thin the meaning of the statute, when they attended.</p> <p>[Cited in Patterson v. State, 48 N. J. Law, 386, 4 Atl. 452.]</p> <p>3. Such objection should have been taken as a ground of challenge to the array, before the polls were drawn, and that it was too late to challenge the array after challenging the polls.</p> <p>4. If, after the trial of an indictment is commenced, the accused escapes from custody, and, for that reason, his further attendance cannot be had, the trial may proceed in his absence.</p>

This was a suit arising on an information filed by the attorney of the United States, against the Dutch ship Louisa Barbara, as liable to forfeiture, for having on board more passengers than are allowed by the act of congress.

[This was an application at the suit of the United State® to enjoin the president and directors of the canal company from interfering with the United States engineer officers and contractors in the work of improving and repairing the canal.] 2

<p>Case Wo. 16,634.</p> <p>UNITED STATES v. LOW. See Case No. 15,634.</p> <p>Patment of Customs Doties — Action- ox Boxd —Defenses—Pavmext to Coxfedbbate Authorities.</p> <p>[1. In an action on a bond given for the pa> • ment of duties on goods deposited in the public stores in Savannah, it is no defense that the principal actually paid, under compulsion, tas amount of the duties to the Confederate collect- or of customs during the occupancy of Savannah by the Confederate authorities.]</p> <p>[2. Nor is it a defense that there was no United States collector of customs or other agent at Savannah, to whom payment could be made, during the three years within which the duties were to be paid under the provisions of the bond.]</p> <p>[The jury rendered the following verdict: “We, the jury, under the charge of the court, find a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs for §1,360.54, with interest, in currency, from the 22d day of December, 1S04.”] 1</p>

<p>Case No. 15,635.</p> <p>Public Officers — Compensation — Receiver of Public Monet.</p> <p>A receiver of public moneys is not entitled to offset against the government rejected accounts for unauthorized clerk hire, fuel, lights, or for transmitting money. Office rent may under extraordinary circumstances be allowed.</p> <p>[Cited in U. S. v. Siowe, 19 Fed. 80S.]</p> <p>[Nowhere more fully reported. Opinion referred to above is not now accessible.)</p>

These cases were tried by separate juries. The defendants [Morrow Lowry and John Lowry] were indicted, severally, for obstructing the marshal in executing writs of habere facias possessionem, issued from this court.

The defendant [Nathan Lukins] was indicted for resisting and opposing the execution of process, issued against him by the judge of the district court of the United States, for the Pennsylvania district; and for an assault on the deputy of the marshal, when en-deavouring to execute the process.

[This was a preliminary hearing in the case of Samuel Lumsden and 12 others, charged with setting on foot and providing the means for a military expedition against the people of Great Britain, in violation of section 6 of the act of congress of April 20, 1818 (3 Stat. 447).]

<p>This was an indictment against the master of the ship Humboldt [Alfred M. Lunt], for forcing on shore and leaving behind, at Manilla, three of his crew. Two previous trials, one of Captain Lunt for shooting at his crew, and the other of the rest of the crew for mutiny, had resulted in the acquittal of Captain Lunt, and the conviction of the men. [See Case No 15,043.] Captaint Lunt offered in his defence, the certificate of the American consul at Manilla that the men were detained by him to be sent home in another vessel for trial on a charge of mutiny. This was objected to, and ruled out as incompetent. There was then no direct proof that the removal and detention of the men was by the advice or sanction of the consul, as none of the officers or crew were on shore, and the consul did not come on board. The only evidence was. that the master put the men in irons, took them ashore with him in a public guard boat, with soldiers, and that the men did not return ’n the ship.</p>

<p>This was an action of replevin, to recover an apparatus for a light-house. The apparatus was made by Lepante, of Paris, under an order from the government of tho United States, and was shipped to New York, in October, 1849, consigned, by bill of lading, to Major Bache, of the United States corps of engineers. The bill of lading was transferred by him to Lepante’s agent in New York, who held the property under it, to be delivered to the government on payment of the purchase price of the apparatus. The apparatus was landed from the ship in which it was imported, under a general permit from the collector, and was deposited in a public store. In March. 1851, it was sold at public auction by the collector of the port of New York, for the non-payment of duties, and was purchased by the defendants [Stephen Lutz and others], as the highest bidders, for the sum of $500, which amount was paid by them and received into the treasury of the United States. They then took possession of the apparatus. At the time of the sale the government had pot paid to Lepante or his agent the amount of the purchase money, which was over $10,000. When the facts of the case became known to the public authorities, this action was brought. The jury, on the trial, found a verdict for the plaintiffs, and the defendants now moved for a new trial, on the ground of alleged errors in the charge of the court.</p>

This was an action of debt, brought by the United States against the defendant [Theodore Lyman] for $17,242.40, being the amount of duties due… Held: that a specialty of itself extinguished a simple contract, when given upon the contract, and at the time it was made. This doctrine has been frequently recognised, and never questioned. The defendant in this case never accepted these goods, never took any steps towards making entry of them before the bond was given by Lovejoy.

The indictment charged that the defendant [Thomas W. Lyles], “intending to disturb the peace of the United States in the said county, and parfcularly to cause and procure a certain James Jack, in the peace of God and of the United States then and there being, to be assaulted and beaten, did persuade, instigate, and incite and endeavor to hire and employ a certain Daniel Fowler and a certain Philip Vernon then and there being, to waylay, assault, and beat the said James Jack…

In admiralty. This was an indictment against the prisoners [Lynch and Wilder] under the act of congress of the United States, passed March 3, 1835 (section 2), for an endeavor to make a revolt and mutiny on board of the American ship Gaston, bound on a voyage from the port of New York to the port of Savannah in Georgia.

<p>[This was an action, on a bond, by the United States against Lucius Lyon and others.]</p>

<p>Case No. 15,652.</p> <p>Executive Departments—Construction of Laws —How Far Conclusive.</p> <p>1. The executive in carrying into effect laws, must necessarily give a construction to them, and such construction is binding upon the judiciary, when private rights are not affected.</p> <p>[Cited in Westbrook v. Miller, 22 N. W. 256, 50 Mich. 152.]</p> <p>2. The treasury department cannot enlarge the district of a surveyor general, but where such district depends upon the construction of various acts of congress, and those acts have been uniformly construed one way, and such construction has been repeatedly sanctioned by legislative action, it must be considered as conclusive on the judiciary.</p> <p>[Cited in brief in People v. Commissioners State Contracts, 11 N. E. 181.]</p> <p>3. And where such construction had been fixed for years, a security . to a surveyor general’s bond, cannot set up in defence a6 a bar to a suit on the bond that the duties as performed were beyond the proper limits of the surveyor general’s district.</p>

This indictment charges that the defendant [James McArdle], on February 26, 1873, being lawfully engaged as a cook upon the British ship Gemini, within the district aforesaid. did then and there “wilfully and continuously disobey the lawful commands” of the chief officer of said ship—stating the command—contrary to the statute, etc. On the trial the jury found a verdict of guilty of disobedience, but not continuous.

<p>This was a motion in arrest of judgment. The defendant [John C. McAvoy] was indicted, under section 7 of the act of July 29, 1850 (9 Stat. 441), for setting fire at sea to the ship Japan, with intent to bum her, and was tried and convicted. The- grounds urged in support of the piotion were (1) that the indictment did not bear the signature of a district attorney, that office being vacant when the indictment was found; (2) that the indictment did not charge that the of-fence, being a felony, was committed felo-niously. The grand jury which found the indictment was empanneled, and sworn during the lifetime of District Attorney Sedg-wick, and entered on its duties on the 7th of December, 1859. On being sworn, it was charged by the court to enquire into the cases of all persons imprisoned for criminal offences against the laws of the United States. Mr. Sedgwick died on the 8th of December, 1859. The prisoner was examined and committed by a commissioner after the decease of Mr. Sedgwick, and the indictment’ against him was found and filed in court on the 21st of December, 1859, while the office of district attorney was vacant. District Attorney Roosevelt, the successor of Mr. Sedgwick, assumed the duties of the office on the 4th of January, I860. On the 10th of January, 1860, the new district attorney arraigned the prisoner on the indictment, and he pleaded to it, and a day was fixed for the trial. On the same day, the grand jury was discharged. No exception was taken by the prisoner to the sufficiency of the indictment until after the verdict was rendered.</p>

Indictment [against McCann and Dulanyj for stealing a steer, the property of Thomas Young and Thomas Files, under the act of congress.

The defendant [Lewis McCarthy] was convicted on the second count of the indictment, for “feloniously” uttering as true, a forged “check, on the Bank of Maryland, which is as follows, that is to say: ‘No.-. Bank of Maryland: Pay to Wm. C. Campbell or bearer, the sum of one hundred dollars and-cents. $100 dollars,-cents.

<p>. [This was an action at law by the United States against Abner McCarty.]</p>

This was an indictment found against the defendant for procuring by fraud the exemption of a drafted person. His counsel moved to quash the bill, and, among other reasons for the motion, insisted that the act of congress, under which the indictment was found did not assign a certain period to the imprisonment, to which, in the .event of his conviction, he would be subject. .

<p>Case No. 15,659.</p> <p>Assault—Criminal Intent—Burden or Proof.</p>

<p>Case No. 16,660.</p> <p>Kidnapping—Extradition—Arrest on Requisition—Jurisdiction—Habeas Corpus.</p> <p>1. In the trial upon writ of habeas corpus, in a case involving an alleged kidnapping, it is proper to allow the relators to go behind the indictment for the purpose of showing (1) the identity of the parties, and (2) that the relators were indicted for acts alleged to have been done under a requisition of the executive of one of the states of the Union; but it is incompetent in such cases to show that the indictment, upon which the requisition was issued, was procured improperly, or upon insufficient evidence.</p> <p>2. Federal courts have jurisdiction to issue Hie writ of habeas corpus when parties are held in custody under state laws, for acts done by virtue of requisitions by the executive of one state upon the executive of a sister state.</p> <p>3. The extradition act of 1793 construed and commented upon.</p>

[This was an action by the United States, on the part of Charles S. Wallach, against William J. McCormich, register of the corporation of Washington. Heard on motion for a mandamus.] The case was brought before the court by Mr. Wallach, who is a tax payer, has always resided in the city, and has been a legal voter for many years, but whose name has not been registered by the assessors.

The Rev. A. T. McCormick, an Episcopal clergyman, was indicted for marrying Mary Ann Densley to Matthew Lawler, without ■the consent of her parents, (she being upder the age of sixteen) against the act of Maryland, February, 1777, c. 12, § 9, which is in these words: “And be it enacted, that if any minister shall join in marriage any male-under the age of twenty-one years, or any female under the age of sixteen years, and not before married, without the consent of the parent…

' This cause was tried at December term, 1802 [Case No. 15,662], when a verdict was found for the United States. Upon the motion in arrest of judgment the case was argued, at July term, 1805, by Mr. P. B. Key, in support of tbe motion, and by Mr. Jones, U. S. Atty., for the prosecution, before KILTY, Chief Judge, and CRANCH and PITZHUGH, Circuit Judges.

<p>Case No. 15,663a.</p> <p>Voters—Requisites—Naturalization—Washington City.</p> <p>1. The fifth section of the charter of the city of Washington of 1848 [9 Stat. 226], cannot be construed so as to make the qualification of a resident of the city to vote, that he must be a citizen of the United States one year next preceding the day of election.</p> <p>2. It is the duty of the assessors to register the name of all white male residents of the city of Washington, who are subejct to a school tax, whether they are foreigners or not.</p> <p>3. The list having passed out of the hands of the register, and being in the hands of the commissioners of election, the latter canuot be controlled by mandamus as their duties are judicial, being quasi judges and not ministerial.</p>

<p>[This was an information against Seymour McCullough, for the violation of section 45 of the act of congress of 1808 (15 Stat. 143).]</p>

On an indictment for obstructing the United States mail. There were two indictments in this case, one of them charging that the defendant [M. McCracken] obstructed and retarded the passage of the mail by the detention of a horse, and the other for doing the same by the detefition of a horse and carriage or sulky.

<p>Case Wo. 16,667.</p> <p>Resisting Officer—Seizure of Property—Good Faith of Officer-Joint Indictment —Separate Acts.</p> <p>1. Under section 5398, Rev. St., it is as much an offense to resist an officer who is attempting to execute process, as it is to resist him when serving or attempting to serve process. Holding attached property after seizure is part of the execution of the process: and if a person resists or obstructs an officer thus holding property, he commits the statutory offense.</p> <p>2. Resistance to a special custodian of such property, who is employed by a United States marshal—though such custodian be not a regularly appointed sworn deputy—is resistance to the marshal within the meaning of the statute.</p> <p>3. If an officer holding a writ of attachment against A., seizes the property of B„ and in so doing acts in good faith, and on reasonable grounds for believing the ownership of the property to be in A., resistance by B. to service or execution of the process is unlawful.</p> <p>4. But if an officer with process against A. seizes the property of B.. and in so doing acts in bad faith, or without reasonable grounds for believing the ownership of the property to be in A., forcible assertion of the right of possession by B„ would not constitute the offense named in the statute.</p> <p>5. Willful resistance and obstruction of an officer defined.</p> <p>6. Where two or more persons are jointly indicted for the commission of one and the same offense, to convict all, it must appear that the offense wholly arose from the joint act of all.</p> <p>7. Such an indictment is not sustained by proof merely that each of the defendants separately committed at different times a separate and distinct offense of the character charged, with which the other defendants were not connected, and in which they did not participate.</p>

This was an action of debt [by the United States against Moses Macdonald, Levi Mor-rell, Samuel Jordan, and Harrison J. Libbey], and the case came before the court upon the demurrer of the plaintiffs to the rejoinder of the defendants. The declaration was drawn upon the bond of the first-named defendant as collector of the customs for the district of Portland and Falmouth in the state of Maine, and the other defendants were his sureties.

<p>Case No. 15,669.</p> <p>Marshal’s Fees—Impanelling Jury.</p>

Certain internal revenue officers were joined in an indictment with distillers, charged with a conspiracy to defraud the government of the tax on distilled spirits. The' indictment [against John McDonald and others] alleged not only a conspiracy, but also in executing it that a completed offence had been committed. Demurrer was interposed, and was brought on for hearing before MILLER, Circuit Justice, and TREAT, District Judge.

This is an action to recover the value of a large quantity of timber cut by the defendant [Thomas McEntee] upon a section alleged to be a portion of the public lands, and removed therefrom.

Indictment for a riot. moved to instruct the jury that if they are satisfied that the defendants did not assemble together with the intention to do an unlawful act, but met together innocently, and that the present affray happened without a previous intention formed by the defendants to do a wrong, then they must find for the defendants, on the 1st count—and on the 2d find only those guilty who are proved to have committed the unlawful act. 1 Hawk. 294; Act Va.

<p>Motion to quash an indictment.</p>

This was an indictment [against James McGlue] for the murder of Charles A. Johnson, first officer of the bark Lewis, of Salem, by the second officer of the bark. One count alleged the offence to have been committed on the high seas, and another in a bay within the dominions of the Imaum of Muscat, a foreign prince or sovereign. The facts, so far as they are necessary to raise the questions of law, appear in' the charge to the jury.

Indictment [against James McGurk] for the murder of his wife, by beating her, while pregnant with twins, so as to produce a miscarriage and consequent death.

<p>This was an indictment [against John D. McHenry] for perjury, tried before BENEDICT, District Judge. After conviction, the prisoner moved in arrest of judgment, and for a new trial.</p>

At the November term of this court, held at Auburn, N. Y., the United States district attorney, Hon. Richard Crowley, moved the indictment against J. and A. McKeclmie, brewers of Canandaigua, who were charged with violations of section 53, Act July 13, 1866, as amended, prohibiting more than one spigot hole in any package of fermented liquors.

<p>This was an action [against McKean, Borie & Co.] to recover $12,580, with interest, for additional duties and penalty on an invoice of Manilla sugar imported in the ship Young America, which sailed from Manilla on September 21, 1855, and arrived here December 31,1855. The sugars were entered at the custom house, and duties charged and paid on the invoice value, and thereupon the usual permit to land the sugar was given. The cargo had been sold to arrive, and was delivered to the purchasers as fast as landed. Before the whole was landed, the collector claimed that the duties, instead of being calculated upon the invoice at the time of purchase, which was before the date of actual lading in July and August, should be calculated as of the date of sailing, and he ordered an appraisement of the sugars on the wharf. The samplers took one or more samples from that part of the sugar which had not yet been delivered to the buyers. These samples were taken to the appraiser’s office, and on them an appraisement was made, and the value was raised 40 per cent, above the invoice, upon which an additional duty was charged of $3,571.80, and a penalty of $9.014.69 imposed, making together the amount claimed in this action.</p>

Indictment [against William McKee] for conspiring to defraud the government out of revenue on distilled spirits. [For prior proceedings see Cases Nos. 15,685 and 15,686.] Motion for new trial. The motion was heard in part on oral testimony as stated in the first paragraph of the head note. The other facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.

Indictment [against William M’Kee] for conspiring to defraud the government out of taxes on distilled spirits.

[This was an indictment against William M’Kee upon the charge of conspiring to defraud the government, under section 5440 of the Revised Statutes. See Case No. 15,-685.]

From the transcript which has been remitted to the-circuit court by the district court of the United States for the Eastern district of Missouri, it appears that at the November term, 1875, of the said district court, a grand jury found and returned an indictment against the defendant, which charged him with having conspired with certain individuals to defraud the United States of the tax on certain distilled spirits thereafter to be manufactured at designated distilleries,…

<p>Case No. 15,688.</p> <p>Internal Revenue—Judgment in Criminad Case —Subsequent Civil Suit por Penalty— Effect of Pardon.</p> <p>1. The defendant was indicted, convicted, and punished under section 5440 of the Revised Statutes for. conspiring with certain distillers to defraud the United States, by the unlawful removal of distilled spirits from their distilleries, without the payment of taxes. U. S. v. McKee [Cases Nos. 15,685, 16,686, and 15,687]. In the present suit he was sued civilly, under section 3296 of the Revised Statutes [15 Stat. 140], to recover the penalty of double the amount of the taxes of which the government had been defrauded by means of the said conspiracy, the two transactions being the same. It was held that the present suit for the penalty was barred by the judgment in the criminal case.</p> <p>[Distinguished in Re Leszynsky, Case No. 8,-279. Cited in U. S. v. De Grieff, Id. 14,936; Coffey v. ü. S„ 116 U. S. 445, 6 Sup. Ct. 440. Followed in U. S. v. One Distillery, 43 Fed. 852. Distinguished in U. S. v. 3 Copper Stills, 47 Fed. 499. Cited in U. S. v. Shapleigh, 4 C. C. A. 237, 54 Fed. 133. Distinguished in U. S. v. Olsen, 57 Fed. 582.]</p> <p>[Distinguished in Rollins v. Breed (Sup.) 8 N. Y. Supp. 49.]</p> <p>2. The unconditional pardon by the president, of the offence charged in the indictment, is a bar to the present suit.</p> <p>[Distinguished in Re Leszynsky, Case No. 8,-279.]</p> <p>[Cited in Knapp v. Thomas, 39 Ohio St. 381.]</p> <p>See U. S. t. McKee [Oases Nos. 15,687, 15,-6S5, and 15,686.]</p>

<p>Case No. 15,689.</p> <p>Rebellion — License to Trade in Insurgent Territory—Confiscation Laws.</p> <p>[One having a license to trade in insurgent territory, under the act of July 13, 1861 (12 Stat. 255), could not, in virtue thereof, acquire, by purchase or otherwise, any valid title to merchandise which was the individual property of an agent of the so-called Confeder-óte States; for by the act of July 17, 1862, § 5 (12 Stat. 589), all the property of officers and agents of that government were made con-fiscable to the United States, and all sales or transfers thereof by them declared null and void.]</p> <p>UNITED STATES (McKEE v.). See Case No. 8,850.</p>

This was an application by Mr. J. B. Seholes, on behalf of Margaret E. Cromwell, widow of Samuel Cromwell, for a warrant to apprehend Commander [Alexander S.] Mackenzie and Lieutenant [Guert] Ganse-voort, charged with the wilful murder of the said Samuel Cromwell. The learned counsel made this application on affidavits.

<p>Case No. 15,692.</p> <p>Customs Duties—Bond Given for Old Debt.</p> <p>Where, in an action of debt brought by the United States against two defendants, on a bond, it was set up, in defence, that the bond was given for an antecedent debt, consisting of duties due at the custom-house, the payment of which was secured by a bond executed by one of the defendants and another person, that more than twenty years had elapsed, after the giving of the first bond, before the execution of the second, that no demand of payment had been made in the meantime, that the defendants executed the second bond without a knowledge of this defence to the claim, and that they were advised by the agent of the plaintiffs that there was no defence to the demand. Held, that this was no defence to the a ction.</p>

This was an action of debt brought for a penalty of $1000, alleged to have been incurred by the defendants [William MeKim & Co.] in failing to construct and arrange their distillery apparatus in accordance with the requirements of section 16, of the act of July 20, 18GS.

This is a bill filed in this court under section 106 of “An act imposing taxes on distilled spirits,” etc., approved July 20, 1868 (15 Stat 167).

Indictment against the defendant [Elizabeth McLaughlin] at common law for manslaughter, in killing her daughter. The prisoner was allowed a peremptory challenge, on the authority of the ease of U. S. v. Browning [Case No. 14,673].

Bill in equity, brought by the United States against the defendants [Thomas McLellan and others] to enforce the right of priority of payment out of the property of Henry Gooding, an insolvent debtor of the United States. There was, in reality, no dispute as to the facts of this case.

<p>[This was an indictment against Benjamin A. Macomb.]</p>

Indictment [against Daniel M’Pherson] for stealing, under the act of congress of April 30, 1790, § 16 (1 Stat. 116). It was conceded by Mr. Morsell, for the prisoner, that he had not a right to peremptory challenge.

but under instructions from their client, did not argue the question of cumulative punishments. limited his argument to the reading of a section from Wharton’s Criminal Law.

<p>Case No. 15,707.</p> <p>Public Lands—Digging Ore—Trespass—Gist op Action.</p> <p>1. In trespass for digging and carrying away ¡ lead ore from the lands of the United States, they are not entitled to recover, as damages, the value of the ore after it is dug.</p> <p>[Cited in brief in Illinois & St. L. Railroad & Coal Co. v. Ogle, 92 Ill. 358; Waters v. Stevenson, 13 Nev. 157.]</p> <p>2. The injury done the soil is the gist of the action; and ore extracted must be considered in aggravation of the damages.</p> <p>[Cited in Barton Coal Co. v. Cox, 39_Md. 24; Foote v. Merrill. 54 N. H. 493; Waters v. Stevenson, 13 Nev. 157.J</p> <p>3. A trespasser is not to be placed on the same footing with .a lessee.</p>

<p>[This was a suit by the United States against Henry Maillard and Oscar Mussinan.j</p>

<p>Case No. 15,710.</p> <p>Cektificate of Citizenship—Illegal Sale—Employment of Seaman.</p> <p>[1. The certificate or evidence of citizenship, the sale of which is made criminal by Act March 3, 1813, is a certified copy of the act by which one was naturalized, and which authorizes his employment on an American vessel, and does not include a certificate signed by the clerk, and under the court seal, to the effect that one, on the day therein named, was admitted to be a United States citizen.]</p> <p>[2. The clerk of a. court has no right to certify the substance, purport, or effect of a 1 judgment of record in his office.]</p>

The defendant, a foreigner, and resident in this city, was indicted under the act of congress, of 1818 (1 Sess. 10th Cong. p. 81 [3 Stat.… Held: sold, or otherwise disposed of as slaves, or to be held to service or labor,” etc. By the residue of this section, such vessel, her tackle, etc., is declared to be forfeited, one half to the United States, and the other half to the person suing for such forfeiture. “That every person, etc., so building, fitting out, equipping,…

M. Brothers were wholesale liquor dealers and also retail liquor dealers.at No.406 Seventh avenue, in New York City. Held: that they were liable to a penalty of $100 for not making an entry of the receipt of the nine barrels, as required by section 8318 of the Revised Statutes, notwithstanding they intended, when they received them, to retail them.

<p>[Indictment against John Mall, Jr., and others.]</p>

The case of the captain and surgeon of the ship Roscius. The United States v. Daniel Maloney and John Christian, jointly indicted for the murder of a sailor, known as Emanuel and another as “Yankee Chap.” The justice decided on the motion to dismiss the first indictments as follows:

<p>[Appeal from the district court of the .United States for the Southern district of New York.]</p> <p>This was a libel of information, filed in the district court, to recover a penalty of $500, for non-compliance with one of the requisitions of the act of congress passed August 30. 1S52 (.10 Stat. 01), for the better security of the lives of passengers on board of vessels propelled by steam. The libel was dismissed by the district court [ease unreported], and the United States appealed to this court.</p>

[Appeal from the district court of the United States for the Southern district of New York.] This was an appeal on behalf of the United States from a decree made by Judge Blatehford, dismissing the libel. The Manhattan [Case No. 9,020], Several cases brought against different steamers involving the same question, are disposed of by this opinion.

<p>Case No. 15,716.</p> <p>Officer— Collections—Pees — Set-Off — Treasury Rui.es.</p> <p>1. An officer of the United States, who has levied a sum of money on an execution in fa-vour of the United States, to whom the United States are indebted for fees of office in a sum greater than the amount of the execution, has a right to retain it by way of set-off, and on a motion made on the part of the United States to commit the officer for failure to pay over the money so levied, he will be permitted to show that the United States are indebted to him, and if this be shown, it is sufficient cause why he should not be attached.</p> <p>[Cited in Bagley v Yates, Case No. 725; The Laurens, Id. 8,122.]</p> <p>[Cited in Antoni v. Wright, 22 Grat. 883; Cartwright’s Case, 114 Mass. 239; Taylor v. Mayor, etc., of New York, 82 N. Y. 24; Moore v. Tate, 11 S. W. 939.]</p> <p>2. The rules prescribed by the treasury department for the adjustment of claims against the government, will, if reasonable, be respected; but if these rules go to a complete denial of justice, the court, if it have jurisdiction of 1 lie subject, cannot disregard the rights of the pa rlies.</p> <p>[Cited in Re Pitman, Case No. 11,184; U. S. v. Smith, Id. 16,346.]</p>

<p>Case No. 15,715a.</p>

Information for a misdemeanor [against John Mann] for loading five tons of pearl ashes. &c. in a sleigh, with intent to export the same to Canada, contrary to the first section of Act 9th Jan. 1S09, e. 72 (9 Laws U. S. 1S5 [2 Stat. 500]). Two questions were made; 1. Whether the circuit court had original jurisdiction of the offence. 2.

[Error to the district court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts.] Debt for the penalty of 500 dollars against the defendant [Tristram Mantor], master of of a coasting vessel, for suffering the locks and fastenings, put on the hatches of the vessel, by an inspector of the customs, to be broken, contrary to the 54th section of the revenue collection act of 2d March, 1799, c. 128 [1 Story’s Laws, 620; 1 Stat. 668, c. 22].

Motions in arrest of judgment upon an indictment, and for a new trial. The defendants, Bernet Marks and Nathan Bersinger, were tried and convicted upon an indictment for receiving excessive fees for services as pension agents; and these motions were now made in their behalf.

• [Appeal from the district court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts.] This information contained two counts (1) For taking on board at a foreign port, with the knowledge of the owner and master, certain prohibited goods, to wit, 100 tons of plaister of Paris, with an intention to import the same into the United States, contrary to the act of March 1, 1809, c. 91 [2 Story’s Laws, 1114; 2 Stat. 528, e. 24], (2) For being engaged in a trade, other than that…

The defendant was indicted under section 22 of the post-office act of March 3, 1825 (4 Stat. 108), which provides that any person who shall steal the mail, or shall steal or take from or out of any mail, or from or out of any post office, any letter or packet, shall be punished by imprisonment not less than two years and not exceeding ten.

<p>[Indictment of Nelson C. Marselis, a post-office clerk, for taking from the post office a packet inclosing a letter.]</p>

The indictment in this case contains three counts. The first charges the defendant [W. T. Marshall] with carrying on the business of a distiller without giving bond as required by section 3260 of the United States Revised Statutes. The second charges him with carrying on the business of a distiller without registering his still, as required by section 3258, Rev. St U. S.

<p>United States on the relation of Philemon T. Herbert against the marshal of the District of Columbia.</p>

<p>Case No. 15,726b.</p> <p>Illegal Sale op Liquors—Habeas Corpus.</p> <p>Held: Upon a writ of habeas corpus hearing, that the act of congress approved August 5, 1861 [12 Stat. 291], as to the offence of selling intoxicating liquors, conferred the power only upon justices of the peace to examine into the charge made and discharge the accused or held him to bail</p>

<p>Case No. 15.727.</p> <p>Insolvency—Government Prioritt—Trust Deed —Subsequently Acquired Propertt.</p> <p>1.A deed executed by a debtor of the United States, conveying all the property in the possession of the debtor to trustees, for the payment of his debts, not including the debt to the United States, is an act of insolvency, both within the spirit and letter of the act of congress, giving priority, in such cases, to debts due to the United States over all others, and the priority attaches at the instant that the deed is executed.</p> <p>2. If, subsequent to the execution of the deed, the debtor recovers property in right of his wife, in a regular course of legal proceeding, it seems, that the subsequent recovery cannot defeat the priority of the United States, which was created by the deed, however large the amount of the property recovered, compared with that conveyed by the deed.</p> <p>3. But if the relative value of the after-acquired property be inconsiderable, it is clear, that it cannot affect the pre-existing priority of the United States. Where “a trivial portion of the estate of the debtor,” in his possession when the deed is made, is not conveyed by the deed, this is still an act of insolvency within the act, and the reservation of such ‘‘trivial portion,” will not prevent the consequent priority of the United States from attaching: a fortiori, where such “trivial portion” is reduced into the possession of the debtor, after the execution of the deed. And the priority of the United States extends to this after-acquired property.</p> <p>4. Whether the property of a debtor of the United States, which is omitted in a deed, which otherwise would create a legal insolvency, be so inconsiderable as to evidence an intent to evade the act, is a question which must be referred in every case in which it arises, to the sound discretion of the court.</p>

Indictment against the defendants [James D. Martin and Alexander C. Felton] for conspiring together to abstract from the National Hide & Leather Bank, of Boston, funds belonging to the bank. The indictment was drawn on section 30 of the act of congress approved March 2. 1867 (14 Stat. 484), and on section 55 of the act of congress approved June 3, 1864 (13 Stat. 116). Martin was cashier of the bank: Felton was not an officer of any bank.

Indictment, charging that the defendant [Alexander Martin] in violation of law did fraudulently and knowingly import and bring and assist in importing and bringing from a foreign port, St. Andrews, N. B., into Goulds-boro, Maine, 100 gallons of spirits without paying the duties thereon. The verdict was “Guilty,” and the defendant moved for a new trial for misdirection and because the verdict was not supported by the evidence.

<p>Case No. 15,730.</p> <p>Internal Revenue—Tobacco Press—Testimony , or Government Officer.</p> <p>[One may be convicted of keeping a tobacco press without a legal bond on the sole testimony of a government officer that defendant told him that he had used an extra press in his factory, which he had just removed.]</p>

Indictment [against William Martin] for abstracting a letter .from the mail, contain- • ing bank notes. Motion to quash the indictment, because it does not alledge that the letter was mailed, or regularly put into the United States mail.

<p>Error to the district court of the [United States for the] Northern district of New York.</p> <p>The suit in the court below [case unreported] was an action of debt [against Hugh R. Martin] on a bond dated September 1, 1813. On the trial, exception was taken to the introduction in evidence of a transcript from the treasury department; first, because hot evidence under any count in the declaration; second, because all the items composing the account were not contained in the transcript. Exception was, also, taken to the introduction of a letter of one Hagner, an agent of the United States, signed by him in his official capacity, wherein he admitted that there was nothing due the United States.</p>

Information charging forfeiture of vessel under act of congress. Claimant filed an exception to the information that it is not alleged that neither the government of England nor of Canada have adopted a regulation similar to the above. The exception was argued by the district attorney and Mr. Lynde for the United States, and by Emmons & Van Dyke for the claimant.

Motion to compel the defendants, distillers,. to produce their books and papers for the inspection of the government officials.

<p>[This was an indictment against George A. Mason upon the charge of uttering a counterfeit bill.]</p>

<p>Case No. 15,73?!</p> <p>Post-Office — Postage Stamps — Deputy Postmaster—Sureties on Bond.</p> <p>1. Section 3 of the act of congress of March 3, 1851 [9 Stat. 589], authorizes the postmaster-general to deliver postage stamps to a deputy postmaster without prepayment.</p> <p>2. The intention of congress by said section was to require prepayment for postage stamps of persons not deputy postmasters.</p> <p>3. Under the said act, the sureties upon the official bond of a deputy postmaster are liable for postage stamps received by their principal.</p> <p>4. The sureties upon the bond of a deputy-postmaster, which stipulates that the principal shall faithfully account for postage stamps received by him, are liable as upon a valid contract at common law.</p>

This was an indictment [against Edward Mathoit] under section 44 of the act of July 20, 1SCS (15 Stat. 142), for carrying on the business of a distiller, without having paid the special tax therefor, or given bond, as required by law. On March 18, the case was tried upon the plea of not guilty, when the jury found the defendant guilty as charged in the indictment, and recommended him to the mercy of the court.

This was a libel in the admiralty, seeking the condemnation of the Matilda and her cargo as lawful prize; and was filed and heard in the district court at Wilmington, at May term, 1813.

On a new panel of jurors being returned in this case, Mr. Nash, of counsel for the prisoners, took exceptions to several jurors for defective descriptions of the persons on the panel: (1) That in two cases only the initial letter of the Christian name of the juror was given; (2) In two cases a wrong middle letter in the juror’s name (“A.” for “O.” and “M.” for “W.”) was returned on the panel.

Indictment [against William Brown, David Baker, George Matthews, and William Webster] for murder of Nicoll, master of schooner Sarah Lavinia, on the high seas, 14th or 15th July, 1843. Webster not apprehended. Mr. Hoffman moves the trial of the other two prisoners, who are placed at the bar.

<p>Case No. 15,742.</p> <p>Seamen—Endeavor to Revolt—Deviation.</p> <p>Where there is a deviation from the voyage in the shipping articles, a refusal of the senmen, subsequently, to do duty on that account does not amount in law to an endeavor to commit a revolt, under the act of congress of 1835, c. 40, § 2 [4 Stat. 776].</p> <p>[Cited in The Mary Ann, Case No. 9,194.]</p>

This was an indictment under section 48, Act .June 30, 1864 [13 Stat. 240], charging John and William Mattingly with having in their custody and possession a large quantity of distilled spirits, subject to duty, for the purpose of selling the same, with intent to evade payment of the tax. Upon trial by jury in the district court, there was a general verdict of guilty. Whereupon defendants’ counsel entered motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment.

<p>[Suit by the United States against C. Mattock and others for a penalty.]</p>

<p>Case Wo. 16,747.</p> <p>Officeks —Appointment—Boxd — Sureties — Irregular Appointment—Contract—Consideration—Accounting for Public Monet.</p> <p>1. The constitution of the United States (article 2, § 2), which declares that the president “shall nominate, and, by and with the consent of the senate, shall appoint ambassadors, &e,’’ “and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law,” taken in connexion with the subsequent clause of the same section, which authorizes congress “by law to vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper, in the president alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments,” and with the third section of the same article empowering the president to fill “all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session,” is interpreted in declare, that all offices under the federal government, except in cases where the constitution itself may otherwise provide, shall be established by law.</p> <p>[Cited in Auffmordt v. Hedden, 137 U. S. 327, 11 Sup. Ct. 108.]</p> <p>[Cited in Com. v. Ford, 5 Pa. St. 68; Lewis v. Jersey City, 51 N. J. Law, 242, 17 Atl. 112.]</p> <p>2. An agent of fortifications is an officer of the United States, whose office is established by law. See acts of congress of April 24, IS 16, § 9 [3 Stat 298], and March 2, 1821, § 13 [3 Stat. 616].</p> <p>[Cited in Smith v. Whitney, 116 U. S. 181, 6 Sup. Ct. 577.]</p> <p>[Cited in Guthrie Daily Leader v. Cameron (Okl.) 41 Pac. 636.]</p> <p>3. The act of congress, passed on the 15th of May, 1820 [3 Stat. 592], providing for the better organization of the treasury department, which gives a new and summary remedy against officers of the United States, who have received public money for which they have failed to account, and against their sureties, substituted by implication the new and sufficient bond called for by that act, for the former bond, and discharged the sureties to the original bond, so far as respected subsequent transactions.</p> <p>4. Appointments to office can be made by the heads of department, in those cases only which congress has authorized by law, and, therefore, the appointment of an agent of fortifications by the secretary of war, there being no act of congress conferring that power upon that officer, is irregular.</p> <p>[Cited in Browne v. U. S., Case No. 2,036.]</p> <p>5. An official bond given by an agent of for-(ifications, whose appointment was irregular, but whose office is established by law, though void as a statutory obligation, is valid as a contract to perform the duties appertaining to the office of agent of fortifications, and is binding on his sureties. Contract is one of the means necessary to accomplish the objects of (he institution of the government, and the capacity of the United States to contract is coextensive with the duties and powers of government. Every contract which subserves to the performance of a duty, may be rightfully made.</p> <p>[Cited in U. S. v. Hartwell, 6 Wall. (73 U. S.) 393; U. S. v. Garlinghouse. Case No. 15,189; Hall v. Wisconsin, 103 U. S. 8; Van Broeklin v. Tennessee, 117 U. S. 154, 6 Si'p. Ct. 672; AufEmordt v. Hedden, 137 U. S. 327, 11 Sup. Ct. 108.]</p> <p>[Cited in State v. May, 106 Mo. 506, 17 S. W. 660: City of Ellsworth v. Rossiter, 46 Kan. 237. 26 Pac. 675; Com. v. Evans, 74 Pa. St. 140; Dickson v. U. S., 125 Mass. 314. Approved in Jones v. Scanland, 6 Humph. 198. Cited in McCornick v. Thatcher, 8 Utah, 294, 30 Pac. 1093; In re Merriam’s Estate, 141 N. Y. 497, 36 N. E. 506. Cited in brief in State v. Bates, 36 Vt. 389. Cited in State v. Wilson, 29 Ohio St. 348; Weston v. Sprague, 54 Vt. 402.]</p> <p>6. It is not essential to the validity of a contract made between an individual and the government, that it should express the circumstances under which it was made, so precisely and distinctly, as to show the motives which induced it, and the objects to be effected by it. These are matter of evidence.</p> <p>[Cited in Hall v. Wisconsin, 103 U. S. 8.] [Cited in Williamson v. Hall, 1 Ohio St. 193.]</p> <p>7. The duty of the government to secure its debts, necessarily infers the means of securing them, and sureties may therefore be required to the bond given by the debtor.</p> <p>8. Every contract which is legal on its face, and imports a consideration, is supposed to be entered into on valid considerations, and to be obligatory, if the parties be ostensibly able, until the contrary is shown, and the same rule applies to a government which is capable of making contracts.</p> <p>9. That is certain which may be rendered certain, and, therefore, if the condition of a bond, instead of specifying the particular purposes for which the bond is given, refers- to a paper which does specify them, it is equivalent to the enumeration of those purposes in the bond itself.</p> <p>10.Where an appointment to office is irregular—is contrary to law and its policy, this does not absolve the person so appointed from the moral and legal obligation to account for public money, which has been pic '-ed in his hands in consequence of such appointment.</p> <p>[Approved in Jones v. Scanland, 6 Humph. 198.]</p>

This was a motion to quash an indictment [against John Maxon] for grand larceny alleged to have been committed on the 31st of December, 1863, in the navy yard at Brooklyn, New York. At that time such navy yard was within the Southern district of New York. By the act of February 25th, 1865 (13 Stat. 438), the Eastern district of New York was established, and such navy yard fell within its territorial limits and jurisdiction.

An information charging the defendant [William R. Maxwell] with several violations of the internal revenue laws was filed by the district attorney by leave of court Pri- or to the term, complaint on oath had been made before a United States commissioner, charging the defendant with said offenses against the revenue laws, and the defendant was arrested upon a warrant issued by the commissioner, and held to answer to the United States district court, and required to give bail…

[Suit by the United States against J. C. May and M. Snyder.] Debt upon a revenue bond. The writ was returnable to this term. contended that the United States could not have judgment at this term, because the defendants, according to the rules and practice of this court, are not bound to appear, nor the marshal to return the writ until the first day after the end of the court. 3 Tucker. Bl. 274, 275.

Debt on a bond for duties. Plea, tender of amount of duties. Replication, that the sum tendered was less than the duties due, and issue thereon. Upon the trial it appeared that the defendant [Samuel May] was a hardware merchant in Boston, and the goods in question were sent to him, by his agent in England, by his order.

This was an indictment [against Jacob Mayer) for perjury, alleged to have been committed by the defendant in swearing to his income return on May 9, 1865, for the year 1864. The defendant was a merchant engaged in the wholesale and retail staple and fancy dry-goods business in the city of Portland. In his return he stated the gross profits of his business at $8,800, and deductions on account of clerk hire, rent and losses at $6,752—leaving $2,048 of net income.

[Error to the district court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts.] Debt for a penalty under the embargo law of 1808. The defendant [Asa Mayo] pleaded, —1st, the general issue; 2d, the statute limiting prosecutions for any fine or forfeiture under any penal statute to two years from the time of committiijg the offence. [1 Stat. 112.] To this plea there was a demurrer and joinder.

This case was tried on the 18th February, 1S29, before HOPKINSON, District Judge, a.nd a special jury, who found a verdict for the United States, subject to the opinion of the court on the whole case.

<p>[This was an indictment against A. S. Mercer, S. B. Parrish, George A. Ladd, and H. W. Rappeleye upon the charge of smuggling.]</p>

In debt, on paymaster’s bond. This was a suit against the surety of a paymaster for breach of the condition of his official bond. The penalty of the bond wa¿ twenty thousand dollars; but upon the trial, the jury found a verdict in favor of the government in the sum of twenty-five thousand six hundred and ninety-seven and forty-two one hundredths dollars.

Trial and conviction at June term, 1870, for false entry of a quantity of petroleum tar. The defendants [Joseph B. Merriam and William Morgan] now move for a new trial. The grounds alleged as the basis of the motion are eight in number, and are stat■ed in the opinion of the court.

<p>Case No. 16,759a.</p> <p>Constable—Misconduct—Removal prom Office.</p> <p>A constable who uses a criminal process behind which to enter forcibly a man's premises, ostensibly to serve a civil warrant for debt, and for the purpose of taking unlawful possession of property held lawfully as a pledge for a ■debt, prostitutes the law to the basest purposes, and will be dismissed from office.</p>

<p>Case Wo. 15,760.</p> <p>Violation of .Neutrality Laws—Sale of Vessel.</p> <p>[1. The mere carrying on of negotiations by the owners of a vessel, in this country, with the agents of a foreign people, with knowledge that, if the sale were effected, the vessel would be employed against a nation with which the United States are at peace, is not a breach of the neutrality laws, where the negotiations failed and were abandoned.]</p> <p>[2. Where a vessel is sent by her owners to a neutral port, for the purpose of finding a market for her, but without any previous contract or understanding with a belligerent, she may there be sold to such belligerent, or to any other party, without violating the neutrality laws.]</p> <p>An appeal was taken by the government from the decision of the circuit court to the supreme court of the United States, but was not prosecuted to a hearing, being dismissed by consent, November 9, 1868.</p> <p>LSee, also, note to Case No. 9,498.]</p> <p>UNITED STATES v. The METEOR. See Case No. 15,607.</p>

Indictment. 1st count, at common law, for a nuisance, in keeping a public gaming-house. 2d. Under the act of assembly of Maryland, for keeping a faro-table, the defendant being a retailer of spirituous liquors.

The first count in the indictment [against George Milburn] was for keeping “a certain gaming-table called a faro-bank.” This count was, upon the defendant’s motion, quashed by the court, for the reasons stated in U. S. v. Cooly [Case No. 14,859].

<p>Case No. 15,769.</p> <p>Internal Revenue — Possession op Cigars on Which Tax not Paid.</p> <p>An indictment under section 3397 of the Revised Statutes charged that the defendant “did buy, receive and have in his possession” cigars' on' which the tax to which they were liable had not been paid, the statute using the words “buys, receives or has in his possession:” Held, that the averment was divisible, and that a conviction could be had on proof of possession alone.</p>

<p>Case No. 15,770.</p> <p>Internal Revenue — Disabled Distillery—Intent to Distill.</p> <p>1. In an action on a distiller’s bond, under the act of congress of July 20, 1868 [15 Stat. 125], a plea that the still blew up, of which the assessor was duly notified, whereupon he locked up and took control of the property, is a good plea as to the time the still was thus disabled.</p> <p>2. If the partially manufáctured material is duly turned over to the proper officers, the distiller should not be charged for spirits which he could not distill.</p>

<p>Information [against Henry Miller] for conspiracy to defraud the United States.</p>

<p>Prosecution of Martin Miller, a brewer, for 'violation of the internal revenue law.</p> <p>That portion of the law which it is claimed was violated in this case is section 49 of the act of July 13, 1866 [14 Stat. 164], which provides: “That every person owning or occupying any brewery or premises used, or intended to be used, for the purpose of brewing or making such fermented liquors, or who shall have such premises under his control or superintendence as agent for the owner or occupant, or shall have in his possession or custody any brewing materials, utensils, or apparatus, used or intended to be used, in the manufacture of fermented liquors, shall from day to day enter or cause to be entered in a book to be kept by him for that purpose, an account of all material by him purchased for the purpose of producing such fermented liquors, including grain and malt”</p> <p>Punishment for violation of this section is provided for by section 51 of the same act, which reads as follows: “The owner, agent, or superintendent of any brewery, vessels, or utensils used in making fermented liquors, who shall evade or attempt to evade the payment of the tax thereon, or fraudulently neglect or refuse to make true and exact entry and report of the same in the manner required by law, or to do or cause tó be done any of the things by law required to be done by him as aforesaid, or who shaE intentionally make false entry in said book or in said statement, or knowingly allow or procure the same to be done, shall forfeit, for every such of-fence, all the liquors made by him or for him, and all the vessels, utensils, and apparatus used in making the same, and be liable to a penalty of not less than five hundred nor more than one thousand dollars to be recovered with costs of suit, and shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shaE be imprisoned for a term not exceeding one year. And any brewer who shall neglect to keep the books, or refuse to furnish the account and duplicate thereof as provided by law, or who shall refuse to permit the proper officer to examine the books in the manner provided, shall for every such refusal or neglect forfeit and pay the sum of three hundred dollars.”</p> <p>The case resulted in favor of the government, and judgment was rendered against the defendant for $300 and costs of suit, as provided by said section 51.</p>

On the 28th day of October, 1876, the relator recovered in this court a judgment against Miller county, for the sum of $7,-267.52 and costs of suit. This judgment was recovered on ordinary county warrants, issued for the ordinary expenditures of the county accruing since the date of the adoption of the present constitution. Article 16 of the present constitution of the state, which went into effect on the 30th day of October, 1874, contains these provisiors: “Sec. 9.

<p>Case No. 15,777.</p> <p>Smuggling—Sentence—Pine.</p>

This was a suit in equity brought to enjoin the defendant from building a railway bridge across the Mississippi river, in the vicinity of La Crosse.

[This was a motion for an injunction to restrain the defendants from building a bridge across the Mississippi river, in the vicinity of La Crosse. For hearing on an application for preliminary injunction on bill and affidavits, see Case No. 15,778.]

[This was a libel by the United States against the steam ferryboat Mineóla to recover damages for a collision between the Mineóla and the lighthouse tender Putnam.]

<p>Case No. 15,780.</p> <p>Criminal Law—Former Jeopardt—Possession of Counterfeit Plate.</p> <p>A defendant was tried on an indictment charging him with the possession of a counterfeit plate, and was acquitted. A second indictment was found against him, charging him with the possession of another counterfeit plate. He pleaded to the latter indictment, that he had been once tried and acquitted of the same act of possession stated therein. Prom the evidence given on such trial, and which was the evidence to be given on the trial of the second indictment, it appeared, that the act of possession charged was but a single act, and that the first trial necessarily involved a determination of the act of possession charged in the second indictment. The verdict of the jury on the first trial met with the approval of the court, and it advised the district attorney that the defendant ought not to be again put on trial upon the same evidence, and that a nolle prosequi ought to be entered on the second indictment. The district attorney accordingly moved that a nolle prosequi be entered, and the motion was granted.</p>

This was an indictment for murder, committed by the defendant [Joseph Mingo] upon William Johnson, on board of the American ship John Dunlap, on the high seas. At the trial the killing was fully proved, and the defendant contended that it was done in excusable self-defence.

<p>Case No. 15,783.</p> <p>Customs Duties — Withdrawal bt Vendee — Liability os Bond of Original Importer.</p> <p>Where original importers have entered goods for warehouse, and given a bond to secure the duties, and have subsequently sold the goods in bond and authorized the vendees to withdraw them from warehouse on payment of duties, and the goods are withdrawn without payment of the proper duties in full, the original importers are liable on their bond, after the withdrawal of the goods, for the balance of duties unpaid, and which should have been paid on the last withdrawal.</p> <p>[The judgment of this court was affirmed by the supreme court. 106 U. S. 437, 1 Sup. Ct. ■402.]</p>

<p>Case No. 15,785.</p> <p>Penalties—How Recovered—Manifest of Cargo—Scienter.</p> <p>1. Under section 8 of the act of July 18th, 1866 (14 Stat. 180), which declares that a vessel shall he holden for the payment of the penalty imposed upon her master by section 24 of the act of March 2d, 1799 (1 Stat. 646), where goods are brought into the United States by her, which are not included or described in the manifest of her cargo, the vessel may be proceeded against in rem, in the admiralty, to enforce such lien against her.</p> <p>[Cited in The Helvetia, Case No. 6.345; The Joshua Seviness, Id. 7,549: Pollock v. The Sea Bird, 3 Fed. 575; The Sidonian, 38 Fed. 442; The C. G. White, 12 C. C. A.' 314, 04 Fed. 581.]</p> <p>2. The manifest of the cargo of such vessel, filed in the custom house, is competent evidence on the question as to whether such goods were entered on the manifest of her cargo.</p> <p>3. It is not necessary to the liability of the master to such penalty, that it should appear he had knowledge that the goods were on board of the vessel.</p> <p>4. If the absence of such knowledge is to be of avail, it must be proved as a defence.</p> <p>UNITED STATES v. The MISSOURI. See Case No. 9,052.</p>

<p>Case No. 15,786.</p> <p>Land Grant to Aid Railwats—Indian Reservation—Treat? with Osage Indians.</p> <p>For reasons similar to those in the case of U. S. v. Leavenworth, L. & G. R. Co. LCase No. 15,582], the lands reserved for the benefit of the Osage Indians did not pass, under the land grant of congress, to the state, to and in the building of railways, approved July 26, 1866 [14 Stat. 289].</p> <p>[On appeal to the supreme court, the above decree was affirmed. 92 U. S. 760.]</p>

The defendants [Mitchell and Fisher] were indicted for uttering and passing a counterfeit order or check drawn by Cummings, president of the office of discount and deposit of the Bank of the United States at Savannah, countersigned by the cashier thereof, payable to the order of Bullock, directed to the cashier of the Bank of the United States, for the payment of five dollars.

<p>[This was an indictment for treason.]</p>

This was an indictment of conspiracy [against Robert Hayes Mitchell and others] in violation of section 6 of the act of congress, approved May 31st, 1870 [16 Stat. 140], entitled “An act to enforce the right of citizens to vote,” etc. The indictment contained two' counts, one for conspiracy to violate section first of the said act, and the other with intent to oppress, threaten, and intimidate one James Williams, a male citizen of the United States, of African descent,…

Debt on an embargo bond. The defence was, that the vessel, by stress of weather, was forced into St. Thomas’s, where she was so disabled that she could not, without repairs, have returned to the United States; and that the government prohibited the carrying away the cargo.

Debt on an embargo bond; and the question on the evidence was, whether the defendants were prevented by perils of the sea, or other unavoidable accidents, from landing their cargo at some port in the United States? The voyage was from Philadelphia to Charleston and Savannah. The night of the day after the pilot left her, she was exposed to a violent storm, which continued, with some intermissions,. for some days.

<p>Case No. 15,793.</p> <p>Execution against Person—New York Code— Penalties—Damages fou Fraud.</p> <p>1. Judgment having been recovered against the defendant under Rev. St. V. S. §§ 2839, 2804, for the value of goods illegally imported, and an execution against his property having been returned unsatisfied, and an execution against the person having been issued, on motion to set aside the latter execution: Held, that the question whether defendant was liable to arrest on execution is by Rev. St. U. S. § 990, made dependent on the law of New York.</p> <p>2. Under the law of New York (Code, §§ 548, 549, 1489), defendant was not liable to arrest.</p> <p>3. The action was not one to recover damages for a fraud, nor for a penalty within the meaning of Code N. Y. § 549.</p> <p>[Cited i'n U. S. v. Reid, 17 Fed. 498.]</p>

<p>Case No. 15,794.</p> <p>Criminal Information'—Illegal Importation— Penal Recovery.</p> <p>1. It is not necessary that a criminal information should show either that the defendant has been held to answer the charge, on a complaint before a commissioner, or that the charge has been found true by a grand jury.</p> <p>2. A criminal information for a violation of section 5445 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, in effecting an entry of merchandise, need not set forth the various steps or documents by which the entry was accomplished. so long as the information is otherwise sufficient.</p> <p>3. The question whether a criminal prosecution for the acts complained of will lie after the recovery of a penalty by a civil suit for the same acts, does not arise on a demurrer to the information.</p>

[Appeal from the district court of the United States for the Eastern district of Texas.] This was a libel filed in the district court for penalties for nonobservance or tne steamboat inspection law. No party appearing to claim the vessel, the district court, on examining a witness as to its character, dismissed tbe libel [case unreported], and tbe United States attorney appealed.

<p>Case No. 15,796.</p> <p>Penal Action—Tokens to be Used in Lieu of Monet—Toll Tickets.</p> <p>1. Act Cong. July 17, 1862 [12 Stat. 592], construed.</p> <p>2. Bridge, railroad and passenger railway companies may issue tickets “good for one trip,” without violating the provisions of the act.</p> <p>3. Those tickets are not designed to supplant tlie circulating medium, but are matters of convenience, equally to the passenger and the companies.</p> <p>4. If they bore any resemblance or similitude to the coin of the United States, or the postage currency authorized by congress, or if the purpose, indicated upon their face, was to cause them .to circulate as money, the corporations issuing them would be amenable to the penalties of the act.</p>

[Appeal from the district court of the United States for the district of Maryland.] [This was a suit by the United States against Francis T. Montell upon a bond given for the proper return of his vessel’s register. .Judgment was had upon the bond in the district court, and the sum of $1,200 paid. The collector of customs thereupon filed his petition in the district court, praying that a moiety of the sum recovered be paid to him and to the naval officer and surveyor.

[This was an indictment against Sarah Jane Montgomery for receiving property from Andiew J. Harmison, which he had stolen from the United States mail.]

This was an information for forfeiture. On the trial of the case the following was substantially the testimony given: Thomas Serger, sworn: “I was appointed appraiser and visited Hr. Mooney’s place, and saw a number of stand-casks containing over five gallons each. I saw no brands or stamps on them. The quantity was marked.

<p>Case No. 15,801.</p> <p>Shipping—Steam Inspection—Government Service.</p> <p>A steamboat navigating the Ohio and Mississippi rivers was impressed into the service of the government, by a military order, to transport troops and supplies. During the period of said service, the year for which she had previously been inspected expired: Held, that the owner of the boat was not liable to-a penalty for her non-inspection while in the government service.</p>

This was an action of debt, brought upon an official bond, executed by the defendant’s intestate, Andrew Moore. The bond was executed in 1815, in the penalty of $20,000, and the condition of the bond was, that the principal obligor, Andrew Moore, should faithfully discharge the duties of marshal of the district of Virginia. This suit was brought in June, 1825. The declaration claimed the penalty of the bond, and the defendant pleaded, conditions performed.

The statute of March 2, 1863, § 1 (12 Stat 696), is, that any person in the land or naval forces of the United States, or in the militia in actual service in time of war, who shall make, or cause to be made, any claim upon the government of the United States, knowing such claim to he false, fictitious, or fraudulent, or who shall, for the purpose of obtaining payment of any such claim, make any false . . . statement, certificate, affidavit, or deposition, knowing the same to…

The indictment in question was found at the present term of the court. The plea in abatement briefly stated is, that one of the persons composing the grand jury which found the bill was disqualified to act as such grand juror, because that without duress- and coercion he took up arms against the United States and served in the armies of the Confederate States. This presents the question as to whether section 820, Rev. St U. S. is now in force as a part of the law of the land.

An indictment was, in this term, found ngainst the defendant for manslaughter, committed on board the ship Connecticut, lying in the river La Plata, in South America.

The defendant [John Peter Morel] was charged in four bills of indictment, as follows: (1) For having, on the 26th of December, 1832, on board of the sloop Charles William, belonging to three citizens of the United States, while lying in Great Harbor, in Long Island, one of the Bahama Islands, within the jurisdiction of the king of Great Britain, carried away, with intent to steal, certain goods of the master, and receiving and buying them, knowing them to be stolen; and in…

Claim for three leagues of land in Contra Costa county, confirmed by the- board, and appealed by the United States. [This was a claim by Joaquin Moraga for the Rancho Laguna De Los Palos Colorados. Granted by Juan B. Alvarado to Joaquin Moraga and Juan Bernal. Claim filed February 15, 1853; confirmed by the commission January 23,1855; containing 13,318.13 acres.]

Indictment [against Evan Morgan] for receiving a bank-note of the Bank of Alexandria, the property of the President, Directors, & Company of the Bank of Columbia, knowing it to be stolen; against the form of the statute. Act Cong. 1790 (1 Stat. 116).

This was an action of debt, brought upon an embargo bond, dated 24th December, 1807, taken to the United States. The plea, to which there was a demurrer, presented the following objections to the bond, which, it was contended, avoided it: (1) That the collector, and not the United States, should have been the obligee.

<p>Case No. 15,810.</p> <p>Internal Revende — Retail Dealer in Cigars —Penalty—How Recoverable.</p> <p>1. No action of debt w'ill lie on the 73d section of the internal revenue law of June 30, 1864 [13 Stat. 223]. The prosecution must be by indictment.</p> <p>2. When a statute renders an offense punishable by imprisonment, or fine, or both, the district attorney cannot waive ft ¿ imprisonment, and sue in debt for the fine.</p> <p>3. Quaere, whether debt will lie on a penal statute which does not fix the amount of the penalty.</p> <p>Consult U. S. v. Ebner [Case No. 15,020].</p>

<p>Case No. 15,811.</p> <p>Fugitive Slave—Assault on Slave—Wakrant for Apprehension—State Process.</p> <p>1. The master of a fugitive slave, having him apprehended by the marshal, in pursuance of a warrant, cannot be arrested for assault and battery committed on such fugitive, while making the arrest, in aid and at the request of the marshal, before the final hearing • and order of the judge.</p> <p>[Cited in Ex parte Bushnell, 8 Ohio St. 601.]</p> <p>2. A warrant for the apprehension of a fugitive slave is in full force until the final hearing and order; and after a rescue, a fresh pursuit may be made by the marshal and owner with the same warrant.</p> <p>3. The service of process under the United States cannot be interrupted by the arrest of the officer in person aiding him in serving such process; or in any other manner, by means of state process or warrants.</p> <p>[Cited in Re McDonald, Case No. 8,751; Re Bull. Id. 2,110.]</p> <p>[Cited in Walker v. Howard (Tex. Civ. App.) 30 S. W. 1096.]</p>

Indictment against Theo. A. Morris for fitting out the schooner Montezuma with intent to destroy her, and thereby injure the United States Fire & Marine Insurance Oom-pany.

This was a demurrer to the declaration in an action of debt brought in the name of the United States [against Charles N. Morris and Henry Brachmann] to recover the penalty of one hundred dollars prescribed by section 5 of the act of August 29, 1S42, for placing the word “patent” on certain business cards.

An indictment for a misdemeanor was found against the defendant, and returned into the district court [case unreported], which, having been removed to this court, the defendant filed the following plea: “Special Plea.—And now the defendant, after the reading of the indictment, says, that the same indictment was returned 'by the grand jury of the United States to the district court of the United States for this district, at the March term thereof, last past; that he appeared…

This was an action of trespass on the case, for the misfeasance of the defendant in discharging certain goods from a levy, which he had made as marshal of the Southern district of New York, under an execution issued upon a judgment of the plaintiffs, and restoring the goods so levied upon, to the debtors.

Morrison was appointed postmaster of the United States at Winnsboro, South Carolina, and as such executed the proper official bond with sureties, on December 20, 1859. His accounts were settled by the United States post-office department up to May 31, 1861, on which day after allowing him his legal commissions, &c. he was found indebted to the United States in the sum of seven hundred and seventy two dollars and twenty seven cents.

<p>Indictment [against John Morrison and others] for an endeavor to commit a revolt on board of the ship United States. Plea, not guilty. At the trial the evidence was briefly as follows: On the 8th of August, 1833, Dut-ton, one of the crew, on account of his gross misconduct, was ordered by Webb (the master of the ship) to be put in irons. The mate attempted to do it, and Dutton made resistance. The mate, however, got Dutton down in the scuffle, and was proceeding. to put on the irons. The crew then came aft together, some of them having handspikes in their hands, and others having chisels, knives, or mallets; and said, that the master should not put any man on board the vessel in irons. The master said he would; and they continued to say he should not. The prisoners at the bar were part of the crew, and present, and apparently co-operating with the others. The master then attempted to keep them oft; and proceeded to tie Dut-ton's feet with a line. Murphy (one of the prisoners) cut the line from his feet. Morrison (another of the prisoners), who was at the helm, left it. and another person took it. Morrison then ran towards the master, and struck him. In the mean time the crew dragged Dutton away forward from the mate. And the master, finding the resistance general among the crew, thought it his duty to proceed no farther, and made no more resistance to the rescue of Dutton.</p> <p>contended, that the evidence was not sufficient to establish any combination or concerted plan of the crew for mutual assistance in the interference or rescue; and that it was merely a sudden affray without combination or design. He cited U. S. v. Smith [Cases Nos. 16,344 and 16.345].</p> <p>contended, e contra, that the evidence clearly established the offence charged in the indictment; and he cited U. S. v. Hemmer [Case No. 15,345]; ü. S. v. Smith [Id. 16,337]; U. S. v. Haines [Id. 15,275].</p>

The prisoner was indicted for forging certain coins in the similitude of the half dollar coins, coined at the mint of the United States, and for passing and attempting to pass the same to defraud one John Sailor; these of-fences being stated in separate counts.