751

·11 Mo.' 575, was based ekc1usively upon the wrongful act' the railroad , company in filling up the'01dchanneland,making the' eIXlbankment tbere. Nothing. wbl1Mverwas predicated in' the petition in that case on the fm· properconstl'\lction of the bridge. It therefore,ddea seem to me that there is no escape from-the,conclusion that this isa,new cause of action, first instituted by the filing of the amended petition, in 1889, and that . the' statute of limitation is 'an effectual The,demurrento 1.lw, evidence '\ ;.
I

of

:1

<)J

.:1

.'

I

,!

: ",. ':. I !,

·; l?

·

. ' ,

.

·

I

J.,

·

.'

·

I JA declaration in debtforthe pelialtrimpo8ed by Act 'tr'. &ll'bb. 96 'l881S,fol"tila. J ,41a"tll":!mportationof,:(oreigner8 uder COntract foltlJ!.l!or; w\lleh ,I.uIlWailNre . ,Iaborer !lid immigrate W Il:Dd. tbat .' '_lit 1thtin be 88siatM1Um tomigl'o:te knewtbat be'WalI under' a fataU1d. " ,·FoUoWj.ng ' ,.'j d iJi'.,' , .'

0" C<)NTRACT LABOR. , "

'

,

, ,"

U.S.".

r"

OJ}

"

:r"rr

,1

;;.J

:1,;·

. ! '.'

/',

,U. S. Qm,JJe1's, Jom!"J{.; Bowers,

l

,.Bee4, f()J'

",,; ,

::;

for the importation of a foreign laborer in..yio;la#oA of the entitled" An act to prohibit the importation and immigration offoreignei's and aliens under contractor agreement to perform labor in the United States, its territories, and the-Histrict of-Columbia," approved February 26, 1885. The declaration averred that "on the first day of April, eighteen hundred and eighty-nine, at Newark, in the district of New Jersey, the defendant, then a citizen of the state of New Jersey, did knowiIlglyassist, encourage, and solicit,tpe importation of and migration' 'iO'fo·JthEl'UnitedStatea or' citHjl Herfuim Passauer, then being an alien and ,'and nO!,a:relatiV'e,personal: friend, ol',member'oHhe·family'of,the said t to said inlppfflttion and migration made by the said Herman Passauer to perform labor and service as an embroiderer and stitcher in the embroidery businll!S1:lA( the said defendant; said business,tbennpt P$I)ga new in!il\,\$try, but having been, the United 8tatM thne",tlA.wit, for more than five years hitherto, to-wit, at Newark, in the district aforeforce ,of the ,pl"OviEliops:,9.t the st8t:liltell;C1fthe and hat}), to demaQd of tW9' dollars, " a gellera!

"J. ,', :

"j'

tP recoV:m;;8

:"':,'

·.

qf

....r ': ,'(,I

752

FEJ;lERAL REPORTER,

voL 41.

being founded' upon a statute penal in its character, a well-settled priocipJreof·pleading requires that in it must be averred every particular . necesSary to bring the case within the purview of the statute. All the 'circumstances must be stated which are requisite tQ. support the action. is to be left to inference or conjecture; and so vicious is a pleading. in, which occurs an omission ,·of such necessary particulars thal&icoucwsioncontra}'Qrma'ln Btatutt will· not overcome the fault. 1 Chit. PI. 386; Burnham v. Webster, 5 Mass. 27,0; Henniker.. v. Railroad Co., 29 N. H.146; Orawford v. Railroad Co., 28 N. J. Law, 480. In U. S. v. Craig, 28 Fed Rep. 795, 799, Judge BROWN held, in construing this statute, that, in order to give a right of' action under it, three things were essential: (1) The immigrant must, previous to his becoming a Shltes, have, I'lnteredinto a contract to perform resident of the labor' or service here. (2) He must have actually migrated or entered :}(3) The defendinto the United ant must have prepaid, his traJ?,sportation, or otherwiseltssisted, en,coul:ageq,;ii)r. sqlioited hiS, migration, knowing that the,iInmigrtmt bad , th,is?lligal contmct. , This construction, of the statute seems I do see J:low anyotherriewof the act . . could be taken. This being ,so, it follows that goodplelldingrwould require these essentials to be clearly and precisely averred in the declaration. But there is neither anya;verment that the foreign ·labOrer did ever immigrate'lhto. the ,UbitedStlites, nor that the 'defendant knew, w'hen ,or eiieoorQ'ged the laborer to migrate;' that he was unger a,. contr.,ct to perform ,labor in the Vnited States.·. The omission to "tilltIte thesene6essa'ry is The defendant is :entitled ,to tilfun:the demutref. ' ' . '

';'

,

'

In

, .' " .' . .' I ' . \ , , "

nl

SOWLES.

.: - " '

athtit, D. Vemwnt.

lalluary 'D, 1800;)

' . _ -. ." '; -

,

.

by repre-

Cc)NTEMPT--'-lNmbuNoB

,tq

"idders. at the execution sale that the writ is blVaUd, and that any OIllt purchasintt 'at lIuoh sale would be suell by him, is guilty otcont8mp1i. ,

An attorijlil}';who resist, We enforcement-of a lawful writ

wlmEXECUTIO'N SAtE-ATTORNEY.

'.'1/

,At lAW. Ji'rarat Pl'lJRrlley,:U. S.: 'Atty., for prosecution. "Henry Kittredge Haskins,- fotrespondent.
I,

j

i.!

iI'hisie; a proceeding for the punishroont'oftlte respondtbt)·iltiihority ofthis'cotIrt byresisti'ngtbe of Ii. judgment renderedin this court against the re. spondent's wife. ,Section 72f5 of the Revised;, Statutes declares the power , oi'tl1e c<>urtauf the United States to punish by fine and imprisonment

.

WHEE'LEti,