KNAPP, STOUT
&;
CO. COMPANY
11.
NATIONAL :MUT. FIRE
INS. CO.
607
FERGUS, Petitioner. (Oircuit (JOU'l't,D. Mauflc1l;u,etta. :March 22, 1887.)
In extradition proceedings, where the first warrant of arrest is of questionable regularity, and no order is entered upon the first complaint and warrant, the diBtr,ict judge has power, un{}er Rev. St. § 5270, to issue a second warrant, the arrest of the defendant upon which will not be held void on MbSaB W1'p'IU.
WAR1UNT-HAlJEA8 CORPus.
/
Habeaa, (})ryua. John W. Corcoran, for petitioner. OWen A., Galvin, Asst. U. S. Atty., for the United. States. ,CoLT",J. I fi,nd no sufficient ground on which to grant this petitiQn. The first warrant directed the marshal or his deputies to arrest the petitioner if found within their district. He was arrested by a deputymarshal on this warrant in New York state. The evidence is that, after his arrest in New York, the petitioner came voluntarily into Massachusetts. Under the form of the first warrant, there being a question whether the petitioner could be held upon it, a second warrant was issued by the district judge upon a second complaint, and no order was made upon the first complaint and warrant. Itis contended that the court had no power to issue a second warrant under the circumstances. We are here dealing a case arising under the extradition law; and it has been held that a warrant may run throughout the United States, and may be executed by any marshal or deputy-marshal in any district. The fugitive is not apprehended for any crime committed against the United States, for which he is amenable to trial in any particular district. His extradition is not sought ftom any district as such, but from the United States. In re Henrich, 5 Blatchf. 414; Spear, Extr. 254. Upon the state of facts presented in this petition, I think the court had power, under section 5270 of Revised Statutes, to Issue a second warrant. The other objections raised are immaterial. Petition dismissed.
KNAPP, STOUT & Co. COMPANY
tl.
NATIONAl, MUT. FIRE INS. Co.
SAME v. PEOPLE'S MUT. FIRE INS. Co. (Oircuit (Jourt,E. D. MifJ8ouri, E. D. WRrr8-'-FOREIGN INSURANCE CO:MPANlES-SERVlCE.
April 21, 1887.
In Missouri, a foreign insurance company is prohibited from carrying on business until it has filed with the insurance commissioner a certificate stipulating that service may be made upon him; and, where it is alleli\ed in the petition that a foreign company is doing busin,ess in the state, it WIll be presumedthatit has complied with the law, and default will be entered on servhe have refused tp receive the summons. ice upon the commissioner,
608
"
FEDERAL REPORTER.
At Law. G. M. Stewart, for plaintiff. BREWER, J., (orally.) In these·cases a default is asked. The petition alleges that the defendant is a foreign insurance corporation, doing thisstafe, having ll.g and offices located here. Service nts \ business was madeuvonthe insurance commIssioner. He .declined to receive the summonsandcopy'of the petition that was handed him, no reason being giVen therefor. The service was good, if he had power to receive the service. 'l'he law of Missouri forbids any foreign insurance company doing business until it has filed with the insurance commissioner a certificate stipulating that ,service upon him shaUbe personal service upon the company. As it is alleged in the petition that the company was doing business in this state, having agents and offices here, we are topl'esurne t1lat it has complied with the law; and therefore, prima facie, at least, the service is good, and default will be entered.
UNITED STATES
v.
EAGAN.
Circuit Oourt, E. D. Mi880Wri, E.D. March ,26, 1887.) 1. GRAND
2.
JuR't' 'DRAWING-FEDERAL COURTS.' The act ()f! co.ngress of June 30, 1879, with reference to drawing 1utors for the courts of. the United States, did not repeal Rev. St. U. S. §§ 800, 802,804, or 808. .. " ' , ,
SAME-STATE PRACTICE.
There being no federal statutes regulating challenges to grand jurors, the federal courts ;may, under Rev. St. U. S. § 722, follow the practice of the courts of tlleatate in which they are b,eld, with reference to objections to indictmentspresented by a grand jury, on the ground of irregularity in the method df'fl6lecting the members of the jury. . SAME':"":'IRREGULAR SELECTION-PLEA IN,ABATEMENT.
8.
The directions in the Missouri to the manner of drawing grand jurors are merely directory; and, uJ:1.der the decisions of the supreme court of that state, objections to the mann'er of drawing the members of that body cannot be raised by plea in abatement to an indictment presented byit, when it appears that the jurors irregularly chosen were competent and qualified jurors, residing in the district, and that the only irregularity consists in the method of selecting them.
4.
SAlim-FULL PANEL-DRAWING FROM WHEEL.
Under; St. U. S. § 808, prOViding that "if, of lhe.persons summoned 1ess than 16 attend, they shall be placed on the grand jury, and the court shall order the marshal to summon * * * from the bodyof the district. and not from the by-standel's, Ii sufficient number of persons to complete the grand jury," the court has the right to determine of how many persons. up to 23, the grand jury.shall consist; but if more than 16 and less than the number ordered attend under the first venire. and the court sees fit to require an additional number to make up the full panel, as first ordered, the deficiency must be sup· plied by OJ:dering additional names to be drawn from tl;le wheel. and not by directing tl;lemarshal to select the additional jurors from the body of the district, or from. particular localities of the district. Ii
fl. SAME-VIOLENT PARTISAN.
The fact that a man is a member of a political party, and does not affect his qualification as Ii grand jnror.
strong partisan, . .
I
