Imágenes de páginas

Case of a guard acting in aid of a marshal. (Davis v. South Carolina, 107 U. S., 597; 29 Int. Rev. Rec., 189.)

Habeas corpus: The writ can not be sustained if issued by State court to inquire into detention of a person by a United States officer. Conflict between State and United States courts. (Tarble's Case, 13 Wall., 397; 15 Int. Rev. Rec., 135; dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Chase, 15 ibid., 193.)

A summary proceeding by a landlord to recover from a lessee possession of premises used as a bonded warehouse, to which proceeding the collector of internal revenue and a United States storekeeper are made parties defendant, and described as undertenants holding over, is removable to a Federal court under this section. (Gallatin v. Sherman et al., circuit court southern district of New York, (1896), 77 Fed. Rep., 337.)

When a prosecution can be deemed to be commenced within the meaning of the acts of Congress authorizing removal from State courts to United States courts for trial. (Virginia v. Paul, 148 U. S., 107.)

A criminal prosecution is commenced as soon as a warrant has been issued and is then removable into the United States circuit court. (State of Georgia v. Bolton, 11 Fed. Rep., 217.)

The removal of a prosecution against a United States revenue officer from a State to a Federal court is effected, and complete jurisdiction acquired, immediately upon the filing of a proper petition therefor in the clerk's office of the Federal court. (State v. Sullivan, 50 Fed. Rep., 593.)

Expenses accruing in a local court in action against a collector before being transferred to a Federal court are payable from the appropriation "Miscellaneous expenses, Internal-Revenue Service." (Comp. MS. Dec., Apr. 11, 1907, case of Cureton v. Rucker.)

Cost of procuring transcripts of the record of the local courts for the use of the United States payable by the Department of Justice. (Comp. MS. Dec., Lyman v. Cabell, Oct. 2, 1902.)

Charges which may be joined in one indictment.

SEC. 1024. 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 offenses, which may be properly joined, instead of having several indictments the whole may be joined in one indictment in separate counts; and if two or more indictments are found in such cases, the court may order them to be consolidated.

Although section 3397 designates as felonies some of the offenses specified in it, and omits to designate others as felonies, offenses of each class, which arise out of one and the same transaction, may, under section 1024, be charged in one indictment in different counts. (United States v. Louis Jacoby, 12 Blatch., 491.)

Several charges may be joined in one indictment in separate counts, but the accused shall not be tried at the same time for different offenses; and an indictment charging the accused in one count with carrying on the business of a retail liquor dealer without having paid the special tax, and in another with dealing in manufactured tobacco without payment of the special tax, will be quashed. (United States v. Gaston, 28 Fed. Rep., 848.)

The subject of the joinder of distinct offenses in one indictment against the same person fully examined. (Pointer v. United States, 151 U. S., 396; Williams v. United States, 168 U. Š., 390; United States v. Maguire, 22 Int. Rev. Rec., 146.)

The statute, in permitting the joinder of different offenses in a single indictment, by necessary implication authorizes a separate punishment for each offense proved. (U. S. v. Bennett, 17 Blatchf., 357; Fed. Cas. 14572; 26 Int. Rev. Rec., 45.)

Each count is in fact a separate indictment. (U. S. v. Malone, 9 Fed. Rep., 897.)

Consolidation of indictments. (U. S. v. Green, 146 Fed Rep., 781.)

Felonies defined. All offenses which may be punished by death, or imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, shall be deemed felonies. All other offenses shall be deemed misdemeanors. (Sec. 335, act of Mar. 4, 1909, 35 Stat., 1152, Criminal Code.)

Offenders against the United States, how arrested and removed for trial-Warrants may be issued

by State officers.

SEC. 1014. For any crime or offense against the United States, the offender may, by any justice or judge of the United States, or by any commissioner of a circuit court to take bail, or by any chancellor, judge of a supreme or superior court, chief or first judge of common pleas, mayor of a city, justice of the peace, or other magistrate, of any State where he may be found, and agreeably to the usual mode of process against offenders in such State, and at the expense of the United States, be arrested and imprisoned, or bailed, as the case may be, for trial before such court of the United States as by law has cognizance of the offense. Copies of the process shall be returned as speedily as may be into the clerk's office of such court, together with the recognizances of the witnesses for their appearance to testify in the case. And where any offender or witness is committed in any district other than that where the offense is to be tried, it shall be the duty of the judge of the district where such offender or witness is imprisoned, seasonably to issue, and of the marshal to execute, a warrant for his removal to the district where the trial is to be had.

Marshal can not be aided by the military. (Sec 15, act of June 18, 1878 (20 Stat., 152); 16 Op. Atty. Gen., 162.)

A person arrested in one district may be held to bail for trial in another upon a certified copy of an indictment which has been found against him in such other district. (United States v. Pope, 24 Int. Rev. Rec., 29.)

A preliminary examination before a commissioner is not a proceeding in court. (Todd v. United States, 158 U. S., 278.)

[ocr errors]

Powers of United States commissioner. (United States v. Berry, 26 Int. Rev. Rec., 405.)

The powers exercised by a United States commissioner in the examination of a person charged with an offense are those common to all examining magistrates. To authorize him to commit he need not be convinced of the guilt of the accused, but the proof should be such as to afford good reason to believe that the offense was committed, and by the accused; otherwise it is his duty to discharge. (Ex parte Jones, 96 Fed. Rep., 200.)

Warrants of arrest, page 402.

Section 1014 made applicable to the Philippine Islands. Act of February 9, 1903 (32 Stat., 806).

Laws of the State constitute rules of decision as to competency of witnesses.

SEC. 858 [Amended by act of June 29, 1906 (34 Stat., 618).]. The competency of a witness to testify in any civil action, suit, or proceeding in the courts of the United States shall be determined by the laws of the State or Territory in which the court is held.

Persons charged with crime can be witnesses in their own behalf.

Act of March 16, 1878. (20 Stat., 30.)

That in the trial of all indictments, informations, complaints, and other proceedings against persons charged with the commission of crimes, offenses, and misdemeanors, in the United States courts, Territorial courts, and courts-martial, and courts of inquiry, in any State or Territory, including the District of Columbia, the person so charged shall, at his own request but not otherwise, be a competent witness. And his failure to make such request shall not create any presumption against him.

Accomplices used as witnesses; rule as to prosecution. (United States v. Ford, Whiskey Cases, 99 U. S. (9 Otto), 594; 25 Int. Rev. Rec., 127.)

The evidence of an accomplice is competent. If corroborated by other witnesses, credit is to be given to it. (United States v. Whalan et al., 7 Int. Rev. Rec., 161; United States v. Callicott, 7 ibid, 179.)

No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. Fifth amendment to Constitution. (In re Mark Strouse, 11 Int. Rev. Rec., 182; In re Phillips, 10 Int. Rev. Rec., 107.)

An officer of a corporation is not privileged from giving testimony as a witness because it may tend to convict the corporation of a penal offense. (London v. Everett H. Dunbar Corporation, 179 Fed. Rep., 506.)

Production of books, papers, etc., in suits other than criminal.

SEC. 5 [Act of June 22, 1874 (18 Stat., 187).]. That in all suits and proceedings other than criminal arising under any of the revenue-laws of the United States, the attorney representing the Government, whenever, in his belief, any business-book, invoice, or paper, belonging to or under the control of the defendant or claimant, will tend to prove any allegation made by the United States, may make a written motion, particularly describing such book, invoice, or paper, and setting forth the allegation which he expects to prove; and thereupon the court in which suit or proceeding is pending may, at its discretion, issue a notice to the defendant or claimant to produce such book, invoice, or paper in court, at a day and hour to be specified in said notice, which, together with a copy of said motion, shall be served formally on the defendant or claimant by the United States marshal by delivering to him a certified copy thereof, or otherwise serving the same as original notices of suit in the same court are served; and if the defendant or claimant shall fail or refuse to produce such book, invoice, or paper in obedience to such notice, the allegation stated in the said motion shall be taken as confessed unless his failure or refusal to produce the same shall be explained to the satisfaction of the court. And if produced, the said attorney shall be permitted, under the direction of the court, to make examination (at which examination the defendant or claimant, or his agent, may be present) of such entries in said book, invoice, or paper as relate to or tend to prove the allegation aforesaid, and may offer the same in evidence on behalf of the United States.

But the owner of said books and papers, his agent or attorney, shall have, subject to the order of the court, the custody of them, except pending their examination in court as aforesaid.

This act not repugnant to the Constitution. (United States v. Three Tons of Coal, 21 Int. Rev. Rec., 251.)

This section applies to proceedings under the internal-revenue laws as well as the customs-revenue laws. The act is constitutional. (United States v. Distillery No. 28 and Other Property, 21 Int. Rev. Rec., 366.)

A compulsory production of a person's private papers to be used as evidence against him in a proceeding to forfeit his property for alleged fraud against the revenue laws is an "unreasonable search or seizure" within the meaning of the fourth amendment to the Constitution. (Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S., 617; 32 Int. Rev. Rec., 62.)

[ocr errors]

The power to compel the production of books and papers covers such documents only as would be, "if produced, competent material evidence for the party applying therefor. It does not permit the inquisition into private records on the mere possibility that something may be found to refresh the recollection of a witness, such records not being in themselves relevant to the case. (United States v. S. J. Tilden, 25 Int. Rev. Rec., 352.)

Searches and seizures. (Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S., 43.)

Section 724, R. S., as to power to produce books and papers in action at law.

Certified copies of papers admissible as evidence.

SEC. 882. Copies of any books, records, papers, or documents in any of the Executive Departments, authenticated under the seals of such Departments, respectively, shall be admitted in evidence equally with the originals thereof.

As to transcripts from books in suits against delinquent officers. (Secs. 886, 887, p. 413.)

Typewritten letter signed with stencil inadmissible as evidence, unless acknowledged. (Sprinkle v. U. S., (1906) 150 Fed. Rep., 56.)

The proper mode of proving papers on file in the Departments is by procuring certified copies. (Barnes v. Schmeider, 9 Wall., 253.)

Documents not official do not by the mere fact of certification become so authenticated as to entitle them to be read in evidence. (Block v. United States, 7 Ct. Cls., 406.)

In the matter of the application of a private person for a certified copy of records and files of Department. (30 Int. Rev. Rec., 382.)

No information in regard to transactions of an official character in this Department is to be communicated to anyone not authorized to receive the same. No information in regard to the claim of any person which has ever been filed in the department is to be given to any other person unless proper authority is shown by way of power of attorney, or by letters of administration, or otherwise in a manner satisfactory to the Secretary, or an Assistant Secretary, or to the head of the proper Bureau in the Department, or chief of the proper division in the Secretary's office. (Department Rule IX; Dept. Cir., No. 69, July 5, 1906.) In all cases where copies of documents or records are desired by, or on behalf of, parties to a suit, whether in a court of the United States or any other, such copies shall be furnished to the court only, and on a rule of the court upon the Secretary of the Treasury requesting the same. Exceptions to this rule will be made only on the written order of the Secretary or of an Assistant Secretary. (Department Rule IX.)

The records in the office of collector of customs respecting the entry, liquidation and payment of duties are so far public records that the importer has a right to inspect them when they relate to his importations. (United States v. Benjamin H. Hutton and Charles G. Landon, 25 Int. Rev. Rec., 57.)

Official communications privileged from disclosure on the ground of public policy. (Gardner v. Anderson, 22 Int. Rev. Rec., 41.)

Privileged records, documents, or communications. (Shattuc v. McArthur, 25 Fed. Rep., 137, note 2; 15 Op. Atty. Gen., 415, 562; 16 ibid., 24; 24 Int. Rev. Rec., 178; papers upon which an assessment is made.)

A subpoena duces tecum, issued by a State court, was served upon a district attorney, requiring him to appear as a witness in a private suit and bring with him all letters and telegrams received from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue relative to certain causes then pending in a United States court on indictments under the internal-revenue laws: Advised, That it would be proper for the attorney to appear before the State court in obedience to the writ, and there object to produce the papers on the ground that they are privileged, if, in his judgment or in that of the Commissioner, their production would be prejudicial to the public interests. (15 Op. Atty. Gen., 378; 23 Int. Rev. Rec., 341.) The head of an executive department may legally prohibit the chief of a bureau from producing in court any official records of the department, or certified copies thereof, in obedience to a subpoena duces tecum, and from making or certifying copies of such official records.

The records of executive departments are quasi-confidential in their nature, and must be classed as privileged communications whose production can not be compelled by a court without express authority of law. (25 Op. Atty. Gen., 326.)

Officers of the executive departments can not be required to remove records or papers filed therein by subpoena duces tecum. (5 Lawrence Dec., 446.) The Federal courts have jurisdiction, under section 753, to issue writ for the purpose of releasing a deputy revenue collector from imprisonment for alleged contempt of a State court in refusing to testify to the contents of the records of the internal-revenue office. (In re Huttman, 70 Fed. Rep., 700; 41 Int. Rev. Rec., 477.)

An instruction issued by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue directing col. lectors and their deputies to refuse to produce, in criminal prosecutions of liquor dealers in the State courts, the returns made to the collectors, or the lists showing payments of Federal liquor taxes, or to give information derived from official sources as to the fact of such payments, is valid. (In re Weeks, Vermont (1897), 82 Fed. Rep., 729; 43 Int. Rev. Rec., 393; Boske v. Comingore, 177 U. S., 459, T. D., 104; In re Lamberton, 124 Fed. Rep. 446; T. D., 689; Stegall v. Thurman, 175 Fed. Rep., 813; T. D., 1616; In re Comingore, collector (1899), 96 Fed. Rep., 552; T. D., 21584.)

Costs in internal-revenue suits upon information from other than collector, etc.

SEC. 969. When a suit for the recovery of any penalty or forfeiture accruing under any law providing internal revenue is brought upon information received from any person other than a collector, deputy collector, or inspector of internal revenue, the United States shall not be subject to any costs of suit.

Similar provision in section 3214, p. 111.

Costs when several actions are brought which might be joined in one. (Secs. 977, 980.)

Costs when paid by defendant.

SEC. 974. When judgment is rendered against the defendant in a prosecution for any fine or forfeiture incurred under a statute of the United States, he shall be subject to the payment of costs; and on every conviction for any other offense not capital, the court may in its discretion award that the defendant shall pay the costs of the prosecution.

The word defendant held to include a claimant in an action in rem for forfeiture. (United States v. Seven Barrels Distilled Oil, 8 Int. Rev. Rec., 162.) Section 17 of the act of May 28, 1896 (29 Stat. 178), relative to salaries of district attorneys, provides that the act is not to be so construed as to prevent or affect the amount of taxation of costs against the unsuccessful party in civil proceedings or against defendants convicted of crimes or misdemeanors.

Laws of the States, rules of decision.

SEC. 721. The laws of the several States, except where the Constition, treaties, or statutes of the United States otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law, in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply.

The above provision is not applicable to proceedings in equity, or in admiralty, or to criminal offenses against the United States. (Bucher v. Cheshire Railroad Company, 125 U. S., 555.)

The courts of the United States are governed by the rules of the common law, because the common law is in force in the State or Territory where the cause of action arose or is to be enforced, and not because the common law has been adopted by the United States, or has under the laws of the United States any binding force, except as being the law of some State, Territory, or District. United States v. Garlinghouse et al., 11 Int. Rev. Rec., 11.)

Federal courts are bound to follow the decisions of the State courts construing their own constitution or statutes. (Mooney v. Humphrey, 28 Int. Rev. Rec., 343.)

How far decisions of the highest courts of a State on State laws are binding on Supreme Court of United States. (Burgess v. Seligman, 107 U. S., 20.)

See section 858, Revised Statutes, amended, page 389, as to laws of the State being rules of decision as to competency of witnesses.

Practice conforms to forms and modes of proceeding in State courts.

SEC. 914. The practice, pleadings, and forms and modes of proceeding in civil causes other than equity and admiralty causes, in the circuit and district courts, shall conform, as near as may be, to the

« AnteriorContinuar »