WAGNER V. COUNTY CO:M'RS.
969
of the father to the eerviceeof his son ceased and determined at his death. Eden.v. Railroad Co., 14 B. Mon. 204; Railroll,d Co. v. McElwain, 98 Ky. 700, 34 S. W. 236."
Again the ,court· say:
,
"If the petition showed what servic,es the plaintiff's minor son had rendered the appellee before his death, and their value, then the plaintiff would have shown a cause of action against the appellee for the value of such services. In no event has the plaintitl: shown any right to recover against the appellee."
This simply means that if there were any wages due the son at the time of his death from the employer, the lumber company, the plaintiff, as father, might recover it, but nothing more. We think, therefore, . that neither of these cases is distinctly in point, and that the question under consideration is undecided. In consiMring the case upon m.otion for a new trial, we were in some doubfas to the correctness of the instruction which excluded from that jury' the probable earnings of the girls between the time of their death and when they became of age, as the administrator was one of the beneficiaries; but, without being able to find much authority upon the subject, we upon the second trial concluded that, logically, educating the infants, and their both th.e expenses of carin;g for wages, should be excluded. ThIs is the view taken of an Iowa statute by the court in the ease of Morris v. Railway Co., 26 22; We therefore conclude that the motion for new trial in each case must . be overruled, and it is so ordered.
WAGNER
v. COUNTY COM'RS OF FREDERICK COUNTY. MD. Fourth Circuit. 279.
;(Circuit Court of 1. OF THE
February 7. 1899.) ,
, The court of a justice of the peace in Maryland is one and inferior jurisdiction, and a judgment ()f such court can only be estabIlsbEid as a cause of. action by proving by. competent evidence all the facts essential to jurisdiction, and shoWing the regularity of the proceedings. 1..'transcript of the record' 'showing the judgment,. but not showing such faets, . iiil insufficient. ' S"ME,-:-:-AuTHENTICATIOl'f OF TRANSCRIPT-PROOF OF SIGNATURE.oF J;USTICE.
OF PROVING JUDGMENT.
2.
To render a transcript of the records of a justice. of the peace .admissible In evidence, the signature of the justice thereto must be authenticated.
8. SAME-OERTIFICATE OF SECRETA,RY OF. STATE OF MARYLAND. The secretary of state of Maryland is not authorized by' the statutes
of, that state to certify to the genuineness of the signature of a justice of tlle, peace.
In EJ,'for to the Circuit Court of the United, States for tbeDistrict of Maryland. R.S. Tharin (John Wharton Clark, on brief), for plaintiff.in error. Edward s'Eichelberger (W. Irvine Cross, on brief), for defendants in error. Before GOFF and SIMONTON, Circuit Judges. P,AU4 Distrh;t,
970
, 91
FED.ERAL REPORTER.
GOFF,Circnit Judge. Thei)laintiff in error, who was plliintiff.be· low, instituted his action at law in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Maryland against the county commissioners of Frederick county, .Md., on the 8th day of June; 1897. In his petition he declared on 11,000jlldgments, still unsatisfied, alleged to have been re:qdered in his favor, during the month of June, 1885, by one JOhn Haynes, a'justice of tij.e peace in and fo):' said county.. The defendants alli)eared, and demurred to the complaint"Which was overruled, and they then pleaded as follows: First, that the alleged cause , of action did not accrue within three years; second, that there was no record of the jUdgments sued upOn remaining among the records of John Haynes, the justice who it is alleged rendered, tb.em; third, that , the defendants were never indebted, to the alleged. To these pleas demurrers were filed to the first and second,'and isslIe was joined upon The court 1:>elow sustained th,e demurrer to the first and second ofsaid pleas, and then the defendants offered and were allowed to file the following additional pleas: ,Fourth.' That the said John Haynes had no jurisdiction,as a justice of the peace, to render such judgments; fifth, that the alleged judgments were forgeries; by fraud. Issue was sixth, that said judgments were. joined on these pleas. The rightfo a jury trial having been waived, the, case wits" by consent, submittep to. the court., The plaintiff, for the purpose of sustaining the issues 'On his part, offered in eyidence 11,000 sets of printed papers, purpotting to be under the hand and seal of John Haynes, justice of the peace, said plaintiff claiming that the same were copies of the original judgments rendered by that justice, each for $100 debt, and $1.30 costs, amounting in the aggregate to $1,114,300. Attached to said printed papers were what purported to be certificates of the secretary pf state of the state of Maryland, under his official sE;al, one of them, certifying to the genuineness of the signature of said John Haynes to some paper, the identity of which was at least in doubt. Each of said sets of printed papers so offered as evidence, consisted of five separate'documents, each upon a separate fastener, piece of paper, -the five being fastene4to each other and each of the'.l1,OOO sets being .i.cl,eIltical, except as to the number and date of the.said, judgments. Copies of each of said papers, including those purporting to be certificates from the secretary of state, are here given, in order that the record,?f this most remarkable case may not be mutilated. They are as follows, viz.: "State of Maryland, Office of the Secretary of state. "Annapolis, Md., October 1, 1885. "I, George B. Milligan, secretary of state of the state of Maryland, do appointed and commissioned by hereby certify that-Tohn Haynes the goveTllor; by' and with the advice alid consent of the senate of the state of Maryland, a justice of the peace of the state of Maryland In and for l<'rederick Tenth election of saidcqunty, for the years 1882, 1883, 1885, and was and the signature 'thereto purportIng to be hIs Is genuine, and that full faith' and credIt are due, and ought to be given to his acts as such. "Given under my hand and the seal of my office, this 1st day of October, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and eighty-five. "George B. Milligan, Secretary of State.
WAGNER V. COUNTY COM'RS.
971
"County Commissioners of Frederick County, Maryland, to Han'ison Wagner, Dr.
For the fulfillment in payment of the first part of your indebtedness to me on all accounts......................................... $100 "I hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true copy of the cause of action filed with me by plaintiff in No.1 on my docket, and similar cause of action was filed with me In each case between the same parties, and judgment rendered thereon by me in No. 1 to 1,000, inclusive, on said docket. Summons issued in each case May 11, 1885, directed to 'Villiam H. Krantz, constable, returnable June 1, 1885. Returned by William H. Krantz, constable, marked on the back of each summons as follows: " 'Summons served upon George W. Etzler, member of the board of county commissioners of Frederick county, state of Maryland. " 'William H. Krantz, Constable.' "Continued for trial in each case to June 8, 1885. Trial took place in each case June 8, 1885. Evidence in favor of plaintiff in each case. Records and proceedings as fully as the same appears on my docket. "Witness my hand and seal, this 18th day of August, 1885. "John Haynes, J. P. [Seat] "Judgment No.1. "Harrison Wagner vs. County Commissioners of Frederick County, Maryland. "1885, June 8. JUdgment in favor of plaintiff for $10000/100 dollars, debt with Interest thereon from date hereof, till paid, and $1.30 cents costs. John Haynes, J. P. [Seal.) "Witness. my hand and seal. "I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a judgment rendered by me, and a purport taken from my docket. "Witness my hand and seal, this 18 day of August, 1885. "John Haynes, J. P. [Seal.) "State of Maryland, Office of the Secretary of State. "Annapolis, Md., October 1, 1885. "I, George B. Milligan, secretary of state of the state of Maryland, do hereby certify that John Haynes was duly appointed and commissioned by the governor, by and with advice and consent of the senate of the state of Maryland, a justice of the peace of the state of Maryland, in and for Frederick county, in the Tenth election district of said county, for the years 1882, 1883, 1884, and 1885, and was sworn, and the signature thereto purporting to be his is genuine, and that full faith and credit are due and ought to be given to his acts as SUCh. "GIven under my hand and the seal of my office, this 1 day of October, In the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and eighty-five. "[Seal.) George B. Milligan, Secretary of State. "Hereunto Is added a full and complete record in proof of the within judgment, in accordance with article IV., section 1, of 'the constitution of the United States, and in accordance with the constitution and laws of the state of Maryland, setting forth the facts and truth as evidence in answer to each and everything that they might try to raise or get up against the judgment or the plaintiff, Harrison Wagner. "State of Maryland, Office of the Secretary of State. "Annapolis, Md., Oct. 14, 1885. "I, George B. Milligan, secretary of state of the state of Maryland, do hereby certify that, before I would certify by certificate to the within jUdgment, I made a searching and thorough examination and investigation, and was told by the within justice of the peace and the constable that the summons or process was served upon the within defendants, county commissioners of Frederick county, Maryland, in Frederick county, state of Maryland, and that everything was done In strict conformity and in accordance with
91 FEDERAL
laws of tll.elltate of Maryland, and that the summons was served upon George W.Etzler, member of the said board of also asked ?;J)r. (#lQrge W. Jlltzler If the summons or process .uwn, him ,as a melIlPef of the bPflJ'd of county c,6mmissioners of 11'rederick cQupty,Maryland; and told me, tp.at thesmDmops or process was served upon him as a member of. the hQ!iLrd of county,. commissioners of ,FrederIck county, Maryland; for the slI1l'l, b6ard of county commissioners a justice of tlle peace in )'ald county ,of Frederick, state ,bytlie name of JO,hn: Haynes,t<tlUlswer uutollarrison Wagner ina and that he,Jhe said Geqrge W. before tM said justice "of the peace,JQhn Haynes,/ of state of Marylanll,toalj.SlVer for the,slild board of Gounty of Frederick' county, Maryland; andtuat Harris0JtWagner had ,a,llroper voucher or cause 0r,ll.ctJO;J;l accompallYJlfJ,ch and every summons Issued by the said j,ustice of· tiie John Hayn,es, against the said defe,nd,a,,n,ts,' the county commissionEftlil 'ofF1rederickC&urlty,Ma'JIylal1d. who were: sl1mmoned; and that Harrls<ln Wagner appeared 'befOre tHe said justIce:of the peace,John Haynes, on the return daY,and"ptoved each ,and everyyQui.mer or cause of 'every summons issiIMil:gainst the said action that defendants,the county commissioners of Frederick county, Maryland; and that the said justice of the peace, John Haynes, rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Harrison Wagner,}GDeacb'lludevery summons, and no appeal by, the Frederick, county,¥lI.ryland, Who, were duly. summoned, and )lotified to act in 'the said 'salli' ,of court (;It county Frederick county,' l\faryland; sMd that the and 'the court'of"appeals of the state of Maryland would'!io'tgive Harrison Wagner ,any ;Is:",.; itherefore It 'was ,of D,91 ilBe,ior ,them toteep, any account of the summons or processes or of'ithe§,l1dgments. "The grounds upon which the wlthJn,judgment wasfOlllllded,was fOl'damfrom blackmail. (And in former false arrests and false dlctments the county commissioners of Frederick county, Maryland, 'would not pay HarrlfWnWagner t4a:c<l!lts or to the said Harrison Wagner by the saldcounty commissioners of F1"ederick county, Mar31arull tOtli:1thel cOsts of defel18'e of himself against these prosecutions; he, HarmsonWagneri/ having gained them 'all;) ':!Thesepeople" Ulllt were perlWiCutingand bla.ckmalllng HarrillOilil, Wagner," being emboldened 'by the Fred· erick/ county: ,court and the cdUrt,; of appeds" of' the state of ::Maryland in reCusing 'oogliVe Doctor Harrison Wagner any law to prDtect:himseltagainst t)),em, now go ,before, Chief J udgelohn ,Ritchie!, of said, county of Fredectck, state of Mn:ryJand, ,and,getout'anlllegaLwarl'ant for Doctor Harrison Wagnel"sarrest; ,And,theie whole,proceedihgs were subjected to the power-iuld order of the said board of county commissioners of Frederickceunty, 'Mary· IUdwwhQ> could" quashed', or, Btopped' thein, ·but who assented' to them. Hence Doctor Harrison Wagnet;'was ,flllsel,y lllt'rested, brought',toFrederlck; of :Moryland'; ,andrefttsad a fair trial. He was arrested by mob force, bl;o,'U, e,',r,ie, of M, ,b,'Y pb force" anll ',as, put, in, the jli,il for five'yeal1Sby mob fo!-"ce. and held a very subject tp, h\l.fsh !l,J).d unkind untilb,e Io,ngtime, was relellSfldb;ywrit of habells, befpre, Judge John E. SJ;lllth, of Westminster, state f llisolisked Judge.} about'it, aDd 'he told me that Doctor lIamllqnWagner had no offense against the law, but was put in jail, at any rate, 'without any color of law, and thlJ.t ,pe very the pllr:t he took, in it,>,and hated it worse than anyl!hlng that he had' ever dohe 11'1' his life, but was overawed by j;l)e 1,1, asked tlwcounty commissioners of Frederick county, Marylll.pd')j ,;I{jIey, told me that" tb,e, ,llj.'rest iLP-dAmprisonment Doctqr) Hardson Wagner lln4 'W[!thout any color, .of law, l!-lld,that 'X/j,gnel,', r a,J;ld told him thllt jf be ,WOUld tiley ha,d '\falte.ilpn promise p.otAq ,cpllnty,state Maryland, for damages, that tbe;y, the'cotfntycommissioilers of Frederick county, Maryland, would then relea,se JiitP (Hll,lTison Waguer) , but that Doctor :El:arrIspn Wagner would not ,9f that ,kind. A.Jl4 now, after t.hIs investl· i Iq"
',XV:,
i
973
gatlon, I have found the suit of Doctor Harrison Wagner against the county commissioners of Frederick county, Maryland, for damages, just, true, and right, and the within judgment obtained good and valid, according to the laws of the state of Maryland, for twelve years, and cannot be debarred under twelve, years; and that the said judgment has never been questioned by any court; and that the said judgment was filed In the clerk's office of tnecircult court of Frederick county, state of Maryland, and Judge John Ritchie, chief judge of said court, told the clerk thereof that he must not give Harrison Wagner any certificate to attach to the transcript of the said judgment or any of his papers, and that he must destroy the said judgment that was filed in the clerk's office of said court, and any other records or papers that would be of use to Harrison Wagner in his cause or cases; ,and It was destroyed, as so ordered. . "As to Doctor Harrison Wagner's residence, it Is truly as follo;ws: In March, 1880, his mother was taken sick, and died The dOl'tor and his mother lived alone together, he being single. He took good care of his mother, and was very much attached to her, and they lived together very happy and COntented. In the summer of 1880, Dr. Harrison Wagner shipped his library and laboratory to Cardington, Morrow countY,state of Ohio, where it was his purpose to reside after his mother died; Woodsboro, Frederick county, state of Maryland, being too hard a ]llace for him (a gentleman) to live, on account of his fixed principles of character. The doctor then went to Mechanicstown, Frederick county, state aforesaid, at which place he stayed until he fixed up his matters. In the first part of March, 1882, Dr. Harrison Wagner left Mechanicstown, Frederick county, Maryland, never to come back to reside in the state of Maryland again, but left said state to reside in Cardington, Morrow county, state of Ohio, where 'he resides and where. he votes. Some of. the .Democrats In Woodsboro, Frederick county, Maryland, who held Dr. Wagner in high esteem as a physician, and 'a.s a perfect ChrlstiaI1 and gentleman, told IJle that these parties would not have done anything against Dr. Harrison 'Vagner If he would have been a Democrat, and that every stitch of clothes ought to be taken from them for their faIse swearing 8Jl.d blackmail against him, and that the circuit court of Frederick and the. cOurt of appeals of the state. of Maryland ought to be exposed and impeached for their winking and conniving at their false swearing against him with impunity. "And I do most solemnly say that all the within statements are absolutely true, without the least qualification or reservation whatever, and that I take no inrerest or part, but only do what Is just, true, and right towards a man that has been wronged, Injured, blackmailed, and persecuted because he was honest a.nd upright, and all that could be said of him is that he lives with a desire to' do. what is rlgbt tQ;wards every man, woml,lU, and child on the , earth; and, If anyone wronged him, he would go to the full extent of the law to protect himself, and this Is what' Saint Paul did, the greatest man that ever lived. Therefore, I, certify that the witWn judgment, Harrison Wagner vs. County Commissioners of Frederick County, Maryland, Is right, just, and true. "Given under my hand and of my office, this 14 day of October, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and eighty-five. , "[!Seal.] George B. Milligan, Secretary of State."
The plaintiff offered no other evidence, and the defendants, declining to offer any testimony, requested the court to rule that said certificates of the secretary of state were not sufficient in law to prove the genuineness of the signature of John Haynes, as a justice of the peace, to said transcripts. The court below so held, and directed a judgment for the defendants. A writ of error was sued out, and the sole question before us is as to the correctness of such ruling. It requires five pages of the printed record of this case to set forth the copies of papers just referred to, and there are said to be 11,000 of such transcripts, making 55,000 pages, or 75 volumes of over 730
974,
91 FEDERAL REPORTER.
,eaclli. of these jndgttlents and certificates. The judgments alone" with.the certificate. of the justice attached thereto, would make 15 of sUch printed volume$, and it is this record that is said to have been deposited with the clerk ·of the circuit courtof Frederick county, Md., and subsequently destroyed by order of the judge thereof. These certificates of the secretary ,of state, purporting to be :under his hand of Maryland and seal, are not authorized by the statutes of the in so far as they refer to the .mass of facts referred to therein, and are as to them entirely ineffective;' It is hard to believe that anyone who ever held the position of secretary of state of the state of Maryland could be induced to sign said certificates and attach the seal of his office thereto. As such officilli. he can certify to nothing, except only those matters as to which he'is empowered by the legislature of that state; and it is folly to claim that any statutory authority has been so given him under which he eqUid properly make and give the extraordinary certificates referred to. '. He has no power to even certify that the signature of a justice to a particular paper which is presented to him is thegenuine signature of that justice. In fact, these certificates themselves do not show, as it is claimed they do, that the signature of the justice to the paper called .the "judgment" is g'enuine. 'l'hey show that John Haynes was a justice for the years 1882, 1883, 1884, and 1885, thathe was sworn, and 'that the signature thereto purporting to be his is genuine; but they do not in any way identify such paper, nor do they make .certain the signature to which the certificate is supposed to apply. In addition to this, there can be no question but that the courtheld by ajnstice of the l'eace in the state of Maryland is of limited and inferor jurisdiction, having no seal to attest. its acts, and that as to such courts the rules applicable to courts of general jurisdiction do not apply. As a necessary consequence, everything 'essential to the validity 'of their proceedings must be made to appear by proper testimony. A justice of the peace in that state has jurisdiction in certain civil. $Ui1;s where the amount in controversy does not exceed $100; but his. court is not one of record, and its acts are not of that high andsuperetninent authority that their truth cannot be called in question. v. Cate, 58 Md. 105. The proceedings had befQre justices of the peace in Maryland must be proven in the'same way as other matters of fact are, differing in this respect from the proceedings had in a court of record, the acts of which are shown by the certified copies of its judgments, attested by its seal. In this .case it was necessary on the part of the plaintiff. below to show that the defendants in the actions before the justice had been regularly sllDlmoned; that all the proceedings had therein were duly taken; and tbat the judgments declared on were rendered as required by law. The proceedings of a court of general jurisdiction are presumed to have been in conformity with legal reqUirements, until there is affirmative proof tQ the contrary; but the proceedings of a court o( limited jurisdiction must be shown to be regularb.v affirmative proof. In this case it should have been proven, by competent evidence, that the justice duly issued writs of summons for all of the defendants, to appear in each of the 11,000 suits referred to; that the same were regularly served on the defendants; and that all the subse-
BELCHER V. UNITED STATES.
975
quent proceedings were taken in accordance with the provisions of the statute in such case made and provided. The transcripts offered as evidence in the court below do not show in a legal and proper manner that any of these requirements were complied with, and they are therefore fatally defective. Shivers v. Witson, 5 Har.& J. 132; Owings v. Worthington, 10 Gill & J. 293; Clark v. Bryan, 16 Md. 176; Fahey v. Mottu, 67 Md. 250, 10 At!. 68; Kane v. State, 70 Md. 546, 17 At!. 557. The signature of the justice to the different papers, so of· fered as evidence, should have been authenticated, in the same way as the law requires that signatures to papers in general shall be proven; and, as there was no such testimony offered, the ruling of the court below was clearly proper. It may be well to note that the secretary of state of Maryland is only authorized to certify equally with the clerks of the several circuit courts of the counties, and of the superior court of Baltimore city, to the character and qualification of certain officers who have been reo ported to him by said clerks as having qualified by taking the oath of office. Said clerks, when required so to do, must give a certificate, under the seal of their office, of the qualification Qf any public officer who has taken and subscribed the oaths of office before them, or whose oath of office is recorded in the office of the clerk so certifying. No· where is there authority given by statute, either to the secretary of state or to any of said clerks, to certify to the genuineness of the signature of any of the officials who may have thus qualified before them, or whose oaths of office are of record in their respective offices·. The judgment rendered by the court below is without error, and the same is affirmed. BELOHER v. UNITED STATES. (Circuit Court, S. D. New York. December 17, 1898.) No. 2,467. 1. CUSTOMS DUTIES ERS. REVIEW 011' DECISION 011' BOARD 011' GENERAL ApPRAIS-
Findings of fact by the bOllrd of general appraisers, based upon 'conflicting testimony, as to the (;llmmercial designation of certain articles, cannot be reviewed by the courts.
2. SAME-CLASSIFICATION-STEEl, IN STIUPS.
Cold-rolled, untempered steel, from llA, to 4% inches wide, and from 500 to 1,500 feet long, which is largely used for making band saws, but not shown to be unfitted in its composition for other uses, was dutiable under paragraph 124 of the act of 1894, as "sheet steel in strips," and not under paragraph 116, as "band steel not otherwise provided for,". or under paragraph 122, as "saw plates." 1
8.
SAME.
A strip of high-grade steel, 50 feet long by 8 inches wide, fitted by its 'composition to be used only for making saws, and which is commercially known as a "saw plate," was dutiable as such under paragraph 122 of the act of 1894, and not under paragraph 116, as "band steel," or under paragraph 124, as "sheet steel in strips."
1 For interpretation of commercial and trade terms, see note to Dennison Mfg. Co. v. U. S., 18 C. C. A. 545.