FEDERAL nEPORTER.

MARCK

v.

SUPREME LODGE KNIGHTS OF HONan.

(Oircuit Oourt, S. P. New York. February 14,1887.)

;

,

BENEFIT ASSOCIATION-KNIGHTS OF HONOR-ExPULSION-DEATH PENDING PEAL-REVERSAL. . . '

AP-

A member of a lodge of the Knigb,ts of Honor was expelled by his lodge, and appealed to the grand dictator. Pending the appeal he died. Subsequently the judgment of expulsion was reversed by the grand dictator, he wall reinstated by vote. of the lodge, and. bis assessments due. up, to tb,e of .his deatli w.erereceived. Held, following the analogy of the common law and of the'law of the order, as held by its supreme dictator, that the appeal did not abate by the death of the member, and his benefit should be paid.

At Law. Charles Steckler, for plaintiff. Morris Goodhart, for defendant.
SHIPMAN,1:" Gisbert W. Marek, a member of German Oak Lodge Knights of HOIl,or, was expelled [r,om the lodge on,April 8, 1884, appealed to grand dictator froIl} said sentence, of which appeal said lodge had notice, and died on Apri125,·1884, pending said appeal. Subsequentlythegrand dictator set aside the judgment of expulsion. Marek hy ·vote 9f the the. dues .assessments which were due up to the date of his death were received.·, NQ :appeal was ever taken from the vote of reinstatement. If the analogies of the common law are to be regarded, the appeaVdid not abate by the death of Marek. Green v. Watloins;6 Wheat. 260. By the reversal of the sentence of expulsion; and by' the of the lodge, he was reinstated as at the date of his expulsion, and was entitled to his benefit.' Itriiay be added tliat such was, at the time; the law.of the order, which had held, by its supreme dictator, that if a decision of expulsion was,re\t'ersed on final appeal, .the appellant stands a member as if there had such judgment,and he must pay all back dues and assessments;'and if, pending the 'appeal. he dies,has regularly tendered his dues and assessments, and, after death, the appeal is decided in his favor, his benefit will' be paid as one who died in good standing, less th.e amount of his tendered and unpaid dues and assessments. 'Fhe motion for a new trial is denied.

UNITED STATES

'D.

M'BOSJ.EY.

897

UNITED STATEs 11. MCBOSLEY. SAME.". MOORE. 'SAME". PIERcE, (Two Ca,ses.) 'SAME ". Rrl'TJjllt. "'SAME v.S1oprr," ,.SAME"'. STOUT and an, ' , , :' ' :
(DiBflrict Court, 1). IndiO,na. -,'

.'

);

.

.'

,

.,'

1888.} .. ,

;

: 'Anilldictment under ,Rev. St. U. S. § 5511, for illegld voting,odor bribery 'llt, an,election for in co;ngress, voted for; ateame, time and Blf1.fWs !lJ;ld upon tlCl\ets WIth for local or state offlqets, need tl:ot that the ballot cast coiltamed the name of a person voted for for representative in congres8,:nor that the bribe was glvenwith inte,nt to inftuencl! the voter in respect 'to the congressi?nal election. Indictments under Rev. St.U. S. § 5511; ,on Motiop to Quash. ,David Wryie and JaB. G.KcNutt, for the United States. Oharle8 L., Holstein, for defendant. WOODS, J. ' The venue in each case is laid in Orange county, in the Ifecond congressional'district of· 'Indiana, a.nd the· seve'ral charges are section551l of the Federal Revised Statutes; the sec.tidn, So fa.r aarelevant, reading as follows: cCIf,at any delegate in congress, any person knowingly personates ,and yotes, or attempts to vote, in the name of any other perSOD, whether living,del'l.d, orfictitious,or. votes at. a place where he may not: be 'lawfully entitled' to vote,: or votes:witbout having ,8 lawful right to vote, .or does any unlaw(ul act to secureap,opportunity to vote for hilll8elf, person, or byfoJ::ce, threat, intimidation, bribery, reward, ()r ofor any fer unlawfully preven.tsany voter of any state, or of any from freely right Of. suffrage, or by any such meaos mduces any voter to refuse to exercIse suchnght;· * * * he shall be'pun.., i&lled by a fine of not more than i five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment not more than three years, ·or by <both, and shall pay the costs of theprosecutJ.9U.".,

-REv. ST. U. S. § 55i1. ,

AND :NATION,AI. ELECTloNs-INDlCTM EN'l

Tbesubstan'ce of the charge'against 'McBosley is that at the election fO,rreJ?resentative in congress held on the seCond day of h'Ei'Voted unlawfully 'iIi a township and''Iirednct in which he had not'reaided long enough to be entiUedto vote: Moore is'charged with having unlawfrilly"procured and advised .M<lBosley to vote illegally. It is charged aga.inst Pierce that he prevented a voter from voting freely, in one case by paying him five dollars, and in the other case by giving him a quart of whisky, "to.vote a ballot at said precinct at said election aforesaid,then and there containing the names of certain candidates for certain officesthe'rein named, among which was the name of said Pierce, as a candidate for the office of sheriff of said 'county, the description of said ballot, and the names thereon, except the llame of Pierce as aforesaid) beingunkMwn'to the grand jury." 'Ritter is charged with counseling lind assisting Pierce tobrihea Witness with money,as charged in the first indictment against Pierce. John Stout is. charged with bribing a v.29F.no.17-57