based a complaint made on information and belief, in proceedings for the removal, under U. S. Rev. Stat. § 1014, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 716, to another Federal district for trial, of a government official there charged with having received money for procuring a contract with the Federal government, are sufficiently disclosed by the statements in the supporting affidavit that such sources are the official documents with reference to the making of the contract, the transactions on file in the government records, letters and communications from the contractor, the indictment and bench warrant, and personal conversations with the parties having the various transactions with the defend ant, and that deponent's information as to the whereabouts of defendant is derived from a recent conversation with him, and from the certificate of the United States marshal, indorsed on the warrant. Beavers v. Henkel, 194 U. S. 73, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 605, 48: 882 242. A statement in the opinion of a district judge, rendered on granting an application for the removal, under U. S. Rev. Stat. § 1014, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 716, to another district for trial, of persons there charged with an offense against the United States, that upon the evidence before him it is a proper case to be submitted to the jury for trial, is equivalent to a finding that probable cause exists for believing defendants guilty of the crime charged, although he also states that he expresses no opinion upon the merits. Greene v. Henkel, 183 U. S. 249, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 218, 46: 177 243. Constitutional rights of the accused to a speedy trial of the indictments pending against him in a Federal circuit court are not violated by the prosecution, with the consent of that court, of proceedings to remove the accused to another Federal district for the trial of an indictment there found against him. Beavers v. Haubert, 198 U. S. 77, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 573, 49: 950 244. A warrant of removal which directs the marshal to remove the offender to another district, "to be tried in said district upon such counts in the indictment now pending in said district as he can be legally tried upon," is sufficient. Horner v. United States, 143 U. S. 207, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 407, 36: 126 Cited in United States v. Yennie, 74 Fed. 222 -Re Christian, 82 Fed. 888. charged with an offense against the United States, from giving evidence of a certain and definite character concerning the com mission of the offense by the defendants in regard to acts, times, and circumstance which are stated in the indictment itself with less minuteness and detail. Greene v. Henkel, 183 U. S. 249, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 218, 46: 177 246. Evidence tending to show that no offense, triable in the Federal district court to which the accused is sought to be rehas been committed by him in that dismoved pursuant to U. S. Rev. Stat. § 1014, trict, cannot be excluded in the removal proceedings, on the theory that a certified copy of the indictment and proof of the identity of the party accused furnish conclusive evidence of probable cause. Tinsley v. Treat, 205 U. S. 20, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 430, Kessler v. Treat, 205 U. S. 33, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 434, Existence of indictment. 51: 689 51: 695 247. The existence of an indictment is not a condition precedent to proceedings, under U. S. Rev. Stat. § 1014, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 716, to remove to another district for trial persons there charged with an offense against the United States. Greene v. Henkel, 183 U. S. 249, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 218, 46: 177 248. Persons are not held to answer for an infamous crime without presentment by a grand jury, by an order removing them, under U. S. Rev. Stat. § 1014, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 716, on a sworn complaint and upon evidence under oath which has been adjudged to amount to probable cause, to a court in which they have been indicted for an offense against the United States, and where all the defenses of the parties may be presented and judgment obtained thereon, on the theory that, by reason of illegality in drawing and organizing the grand jury, such indictment is void. Greene v. Henkel, 183 U. S. 249, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 218, 46: 177 Sufficiency of indictment. Probable Cause, see Evidence, 2393, As Prima Facie Evidence of Probable 249. It is scarcely seemly for a committing magistrate to examine closely into the validity of an indictment found in a Federal court of another district. There must be some competent evidence to show that an offense has been committed over which the court in the other district had jurisdiction and that the defendant is the individual named in the charge, and that there is probable cause for believing him guilty of the offense charged. Benson v. Henkel, 198 U. S. 1, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 569, 49: 919 Cited in Tinsley v. Treat, 205 U. S. 31, 51 L. ed. 695. 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 430-United States v. Greene, 146 Fed. 798. 250. A magistrate acting pursuant to U. as S. Rev. Stat. § 1014, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, | Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3680), in bribing two p. 716, providing for the removal to another Federal officers to reveal the contents of cerdistrict for trial of persons there charged tain reports pertaining to an investigation with an offense against the United States, then pending in the Land Department with is justified in treating a properly certified respect to certain frauds used in obtaining copy of an indictment, valid on its face, public lands, are not available in proceedings and purporting to have been found by a before a United States commissioner for the grand jury acting in fact as such at a reg- removal of the accused to another Federal ular term of the district court of the United district for trial, where such objections raise States, presided over by one of its judges, the questions whether the statute applied to and hearing testimony in the ordinary way, reports which had not yet been filed and an indictment found by a competent might never be filed, or whether the words of grand jury, irrespective of any irregularities the statute, "which may at any time be in drawing and organizing the grand jury pending, or which may by law be brought bewhich found the indictment. Greene v. fore him in his official capacity," apply to the Henkel, 183 U. S. 249, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 218, pendency of the investigation or to the pend46: 177 ency of an obligation not to reveal the conCited in Benson v. Henkel, 198 U. S. 10, 49 L. tents of a paper then in the officer's possesed. 922, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 569. sion, or whether the revealing of the contents of such reports was forbidden by any lawful authority, there being no statute imposing such obligation; but such questions should be determined by the court in which the indictment was found. Benson v. Henkel, 198 U. S. 1, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 569, cited in Ex parte Black, 147 Fed. 836. Waiver. 251. A decision granting a removal, under U. S. Rev. Stat. § 1014, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 716, to another district for trial, of persons there charged with an offense against the United States, where an indictment has been found, is not an adjudication of the sufficiency of the indictment in law as against any objection which may subsequently be made by the defendants. Greene v. Henkel, 183 U. S. 249, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 218, 46: 177 Cited in United States v. Yarborough, 122 Fed. 299-Re Benson, 13 Fed. 487. 49: 919 255. Whether defendants, sought to be removed, under U. S. Rev. Stat. § 1014, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 716, to another dis trict, for trial for an offense against the 252. The existence of technical defects in United States, for which they have there an indictment with respect to the averments been indicted, have waived, or can waive, the of time, place, or circumstances will not right to question the validity and regularity prevent the removal, under U. S. Rev. Stat. of the grand jury which found the indict§ 1014, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 716, to ment, can only be raised before, and decided another district for trial, of persons there in the first instance by, the court in which charged with an offense against the United they are to be tried. Greene v. Henkel, 183 States, if evidence be given upon the hear-U. S. 249, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 218, ing which supplies such defects, and shows probable cause to believe the defendants guilty of the commission of the offense defectively stated in the indictment. Greene v. Henkel, 183 U. S. 249, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 218. 46: 177 Cited in Beavers v. Henkel, 194 U. S. 85, 48 L. ed. 887, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 605-Green v. MacDougall, 199 U. S. 601, 50 L. ed. 328 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 748-Tinsley v. Treat, 205 U. S. 30, 51 L. ed. 694, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 430 -United States v. Greene, 146 Fed. 796. 253. So far as respects technical objections, the sufficiency of an indictment is not a matter of inquiry in proceedings for the removal, under U. S. Rev. Stat. § 1014, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 716, to another Federal district for trial, of a person there charged with an offense against the United States, but is to be determined by the court in which the indictment was found. Beavers v. Henkel, 194 U. S. 73, 24 Sup. 605. 48: 882 Cited in Benson v. Henkel, 198 U. S. 10, 49 L. ed. 922, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 569-Green v. MacDougall, 199 U. S. 601, 50 L. ed. 328, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 748-Re Benson, 130 Fed. 487 -Ex parte Black, 147 Fed. 836-Farr v. Palmer, 24 App. D. C. 237. Ct. Rep. CRIMINATION OF SELF. 46: 177 Protection Against, see Criminal Law, III. b. Search or Seizure to Compel, see Search and CROP. Raised by Pre-emption Claimant in Adverse Future Crops Covered by Mortgage, see Measure of Recovery against Government Sale of Growing Crop, see Sale, 60. CROSS ACTION. 254. Objections to an indictment charging Right to Remove to Federal Court, see Rea violation of U. S. Rev. Stat. § 5451 (U. S.1 moval of Causes, 25. CROSS APPEAL. Right to Take, see Appeal and Error, 731. Necessity of Taking, in Order to be Heard on Appeal, see Appeal and Error, 4024, 4026, 4028. Dismissal of, see Appeal and Error, VII. i, 9. Necessity of Appearance on, see Appeal and CROSS BILL. See Pleading, V. CROSS DEMANDS. See Set-Off and Counterclaim. CROSS EXAMINATION. See Witnesses, V. b. CROSSING. Injury at Railway Crossing, see Railroads, CRUISER. Right to Make Seizure for Benefit of Government, see Prize and Capture, 33. CUBA. Propriety of Military Occupation as Political Effect of Treaty with, on Customs Duties, Judicial Notice of Occupation by. United As Foreign Territory Subject to Extradition The occupancy and control of the island of Cuba under military authority of the United States cannot be deemed to be an unconstitutional and unauthorized interference with the internal affairs of a friend ly power (Cuba), by virtue of the joint re- CROSS INTERROGATORIES. Imputing Fraud or Collusion to Guardian ad Litum from Failure to File, see Infants, 46. CULVERT. Requiring Railroad Company to Pay Costs of, see Constitutional Law, 272. Imposing Expense of Building upon Railroad, see Constitutional Law, 461. Requiring Railroad Company to Pay Cost of Rebuilding, see Constitutional Law, 498. CROSS LIBEL. In Admiralty, see Admiralty, III. g, 4. CROSS SUIT. See Admiralty, III. g, 4. CROWN GRANTS. See Public Lands, III. CRUEL AND UNUSUAL See Criminal Law, V. b. CUMBERLAND ROAD. Right of Mail Coach to Free Passage, see Under the act of Congress of 1816 admitting the state of Indiana into the Union, which provided that 5 per cent of the net proceeds of public lands within the state should be applied to the making of a road or roads leading to the state, 3 per cent of which should be disbursed by the state and 2 per cent by the United States, Congress was not bound to complete any road, nor was the 2 per cent required to be expended within the state. The only obligation was to apply the 2 per cent fund to the making of the road or roads leading to the state, and it was for Congress to decide PUNISH- on what part of such road such fund should be expended. Indiana v. United States, 148 U. S. 148, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 564, 37: 401 Cited in Luxton v. North River Bridge Co. 133 891. 2449 U. S. 529, 38 L. ed. 810, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep., Accepting Payment in Depreciated Currency, of Notes Received for Collection, see Banks, 160, 161. CUMULATION. City Bills Issued to Circulate, see Municipal Corporations, 86. As Medium of Payment Generally, see Payment, II. b. Of Votes for Corporate Directors, see Con- Comptroller of, see Comptroller of Currency. stitutional Law, 1400. See also Money. Act Validating Municipal or County Bonds. CURTESY. Forfeiture of, by Attainder, see Attainder 1-2. [A conveyance in fee, by a tenant by 3. Constructive seisin in deed, without entry, exists in the case of tenancy by the Destruction of Vested Rights by, see Con-curtesy of land subject to a lease for years. stitutional Law, 944-946. Statute Curing Defective Conveyances, see Legislative Provisions for Cure of Defective Green v. Liter, 8 Cranch, 229, 3:545 Cited in McDaniel v. Grace, 15 Ark. 483- 4. The general rule of law is that there Ratification of Defective Action by Munic-must be an entry upon the premises during ipality, see Municipal Corporations, 37, 38. See also Constitutional Law, IV. f, 2, b. CURATIVE ORDERS. As to Void Administrator's Sale, see Executors and Administrators, 256. CURATOR. Validity of Judgment on Unauthorized pearance by, see Judgment, 264. CURRENCY. coverture, to enable a husband to claim by the curtesy. Where no entry was made by either husband or wife during her life, the claim of the husband to curtesy was held invalid. Mercer v. Selden, 1 How 37, 11:38 Cited in Allen v. Hanks, 136 U. S. 310, 34 L. ed. 418, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 961-Harris v. Ross, 86 Mo. 102, 56 Am. Rep. 411-Billings v. Baker, 28 Barb. 370-Furguson v. Tweedy, 56 Barb. 173-Baker v. Oakwood, 49 Hun, 419, 3 N. Y. Sup. 570-Ferguson v. Tweedy, 43 N. Y. 548-Murdock v. Reed, 1 Disney (Ohio) 275-Withers v. Jenkins, 14 S. C. 612. 5. It is not necessary that the husband Ap-shall have had actual seisin of the "wild lands" of his wife, to entitle him to a tenancy by curtesy. Where no adverse possession exists, a right of entry is sufficient to sustain the tenancy. Davis v. Mason, 1 Pet. 503. 7: 239 Cited in Allen v. Hanks, 136 U. S. 310, 34 L. ed. 418, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 961-McDaniel v. Grace, 15 Ark. 483-Todd v. Oviatt, 58 Conn. 182. 7 L.R.A. 696, 20 Atl. 440-Mettler v. Miller, 129 II. 639, 22 N. E. 529-Vanarsdall v. Fauntleroy, 7 B. Mon. 402-Neely v. Butler, 10 B. Mon. 49-Wass v. Bucknam, 38 Me. 360-Day v. Cochran, 24 Miss. 276Redus v. Hayden, 43 Miss. 635-Murdock v. Reed, 1 Disney (Ohio) 275-Borland v. Marshall, 2 Ohio St. 313-Westcott v. Miller, 42 Wis. 466. 6. A husband may have curtesy of a trust as well as of a legal estate, of an equity of redemption, a contingent use, or money to be laid out in lands. Davis v. Mason, 1 Pet. 503, 7: 239 Cited in Wells v. Thompson, 13 Ala 803, 48 Am. Dec. 76. 7. Where levy was made upon property of a married woman, under an execution against her husband for debts contracted after the passage of an act providing that her property should be as absolute as if she were unmarried, and not subject to his disposal or liable for his debts, it was held that he had no interest, as tenant by the curtesy, which could be the subject of a sale, but that the law had placed the wife, in regard to her property, in the condition of a feme sole. Hitz v. National Metropolitan Bank, 111 U. S. 722, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 613, 28: 577 Limited and distinguished in Uhler v. Adams, 1 App. D. C. 399. Cited in Neelly v. Lancaster, 47 Ark. 177, 1 S. W. 66-Erwin v. Puryear, 50 Ark. 358, 7 S. W. 449-Davis v. Coblens, 12 App. D. C. 59-Zeust v. Staffan, 16 App. D. C. 148Chadsey v. Fuller, 6 Mackey. 129-Guernsey v. Lazear, 51 W. Va. 331, 41 S. E. 405. Editorial notes. Tenancy by. [Legislative power to destroy or change. 19 L.R.A. 256.] CUSTODIA LEGIS. See Custody of the Law. 11:38 Editorial note. [Right to sell property while in custody of law. 1 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1055.] CUSTOM AND USAGE. 1. Nature, Requisites, and Validity. 1-16. II. Operation and Effect, 17-50. Of Former Government as Rule of Decision in Private Land Claim Cases, see Private Land Claims, 463, 464, 466. Statutory Rules of Navigation Superseding, Presumption as to Course of Business, see see Collision, 2. Evidence, II. j. Judicial Notice of, see Evidence, 106-109. Evidence of, Generally, see Evidence, XI. b. 2376, 2536-2538. Knowledge by Insured of Usage of Insured, see Evidence, 251. For Payment of Extra Allowance, see Army and Navy, 187. As to General Average, see Average, 47. Of Steamship Backing from Berth, see Col. lision, 211. As to Navigation of River, see Collision, 236-241. As to Speed of Vessel during Fog, see Col. lision, 259. As to Look-Out on Vessel, while Reefing, see Collision, 348. As to Protest of Bill or Note, see Evidence, 1329. As to Acquisition of Dominion over Conquered Territory, see International Law, 38. CUSTODY OF PRISONER. |