FEDERAL REPORTER.
been fraudulently conveyed, had nothing to do with the other fraudulenttransactions. The case against the debtor is so cannot be prosecuted tn several suits, and yet each of the defendants ,is a necel$sary party to some part of the case l$tated. In such case neitlierof the defendants can dE'lllUr for multifariousness, or for a misjoinder of cause of action in some of which he has 'no (interest." The, same doctrine is approved in Randolph v. Daly, 16 N. J. Eq. 313. Demurrers for the !lame cause and under an analogous state of facts were overruled in Railroad (Jo. v. Sch'/!-ykrr; 17 N. Y. 592, in Fellow8 v. FeUOW8, 4 Cow. 682. The supreme court of the United States held that it is impracticable to lay down any fixed, unbending rule as to wha:t constitutes multifariousness. Each case must -depend upon its specialcircumEltances and the necessities which may arise out of the due administration of justice in that case. As a general rule, the court will not compel parties to incur the expense, vexation, and delay of several snits ';vh ere the transactions constituting the subject of the litigation or out of which the litigation ,arises, are so connected by their circumstll\lCeSas, to render it proper and convenierit that they should be amined in the SRme suit, and full relief given by 'one comprehensive decree. ,A.'different rule would often prove to be both oppressive and miscould result 'in no possible benefit to any litigant whose was not simply to harass his adversary, but to ascertain what , Sheldon Keok'ttk,N. L. (Jo;, 8 Fed. Rep. were his just legal 169. ,The defendants can'be 'placed under no disadvantage by being joined in the bill,and the complainant will be saved the expense, labor, and time of prosecuting several suits. , ' The demtlrrer is overruled, lind' it is ordered that the defendants plead to or answer the bill within 30 days.
HAYES ". UNITED STATEs.
«(JfrCUil (Jourt;D. 1.
(Jolo'1'aao. N overriDer 14, 1887.) .,
. was of and corruptly obstructtng the' administration of"justice' as a juror; On the trial counsel for accused , sUtted that !this was "the first, case of the The court told the jury it . theftrst of the kin!!; and that a similar case had arisen. and gave tbe general facts of it.. Held, that it', was not error for tbe court to tbus disabuse the' minds' of the jury of an impression that they were trying an unprece· dented case. . i ' i. . ,
CRIMINAL. PRACTICE-1NsTRUCTlON8-o-PROVINCE 0' COURT,
2. ,SA.:ME, " . . . .· " _ TAil court further said: h,e.{defendant) went,out and took counsel of ,*.' .' with respect to VerdIct.) His choice of an adviser was rather .),' unfortunate;' that a man should go toil. boon companion in a drinking-saloon, a bar-room loafer, to ask what the law is on a subject of that kind," Held. that this was not error, as the judge's reference to the witness as a "bar-room by his appearance, and the other facts re, loafer"might have been ferred to appeared in the record. ' .' " .
HAYES "'. UNITED STATES.
663
3. W
.In a criminal action, wher.e witnesses had testified as to defendant's good character, the trial judge charged: "And if you believe him guilty, let not the fact that bankers and business men have testified that he isa man of integrity, by which they mean, probablY,that he pays his debts, influence your verdict, or discourage you in the discharge of your duty, " Held, thlit this WliS a. cor· rect statement of lliw, and though it Was a "covert fling" at the witnesses' criterions of character, it was not error.
INSTRUCTIONS·
H. W. Hobson, for the United States. Patterson &: Tlunnas, for defendant. BREWER; J. At the November term, 1886, of the district court, the plaintiff in error was convicted under an indictment for corruptly obstructing the administrationof justice, and for contempt of court,and the case is now before me on a writ of error from that conviction and 'sentence. The only errors alleged by counsel in their briefs are in the instructions given the jury, and those not as inaccurate statement80f were presented, but as improper comments law, where upon the facts;iuidas improperly throwing the weight of the court's opinion in favor of the ·prosecution and against the . Thiscase comes before me'on a writ of error, and the same rules COlitrol me inits decision as have been announced bythe supreme conrtin the decision of C8sestaken on error to it. .And it h;' the settled rule of that court that comments made by the·trial judge upon matters of fact in his charge to the jury furnish no grounds of error. In the early case of Carver v. Jq,ekiJon, 4 Pet. 80, the supreme court,by STORY, J., laid down the rule in this language: .:.. "That withtl1echafge of. the tMjury hponmere matters of fact, and with its commental'ies upon the weight of evidence, this court haB noth· . hlg to do; observ'ationB of that nature are underBtood to be addressed 00 the jury. merelyfodheir consideration as the ultimate judges of matters of fact, ; arid are entitled tono.illore weight or importance thanthejury in the exercise .9£ their own judgment choose to give them. They are, no.r are they to. be, binding upon true and. conclusive exposition of the evidence." ' .
This doctrine is affirmed in the .case of Magniac v. Thompson, ·7 Pet. 348. See, also, the.cases of M'Lanahan v. I'l'Ul'Urance Co., 1 Pet.. 182; Game8 v. Stiles, 14 Pet. 322; MitcheU v. Harriumy, 13 How. 115; ReyMlda v.U: S., 98U. S. 145. This last case is very much in point. It was a trial in Utah for bigamy, and the court inclui.rw.ng the jury called .'Upon them "to· consider what are to be the consequences to the innocent [the doctrine of As this contest victims of goes on, they multiply, and there are pure-minded women, and there ll,re innocent children......innocent in a sense heyond. the· innocence of childjurors fail to do tht:ir hood itself. These are to be the sufferers; and duty, and as these cases come up in the Territory of Utah,just so do these victims multiply and spread themselves over the land, """7"Itnd this language of the court to the jury was held not improper. /In the case at bar, the defendant was charged with obstructing the ad-
FEDERALBEPORTER.
Illinist.ration of justice, and the testimony tended to show that while actipg .ll.S .a juror, and before the close of the trial, he was in a bar-room, drinking with fdends, and declaring that the verdict IllUSt be in favor of the plaintiff or there would be no at all. It appeared also from the testimony thatint.hat trial in which defendantwas acting as a juror a large amount was involved, and that each side was employing detectives to watch the jurors. It is not to be wondered at under the circumstances that the learned judge who tried this case was indignant and felt called upon to impress upon the jury the sctiousness of charged, and their duty to give careful attention to the testimony. It is painfully true that there .are some violations of ll\w, such as tampering with the ballolf,box, influencing ofjurors, and matters ofthat kind, which t()lliany selflm trivial; often in com,mon conversation laughed at .when succe!,sful, !IJld sneered at w;hen a failure; but they are offepses fl.!though the. punishment imposed by statute beUl).;t great, are of a Illost heiqops c;lh!!-racter and affecting yitally the best interof the trial when cases of that kind ests of society. It is are presented, to see to: it that they are not laughed out of court, and that the jury are impressed with the seriousness of the accusation... is a. matter of ratherthan of COmplaint, that there are judges weight oLoharll-cter, learning, and high ability are such that earnest words Gompel the serious attention of jurors. ,More than once iuhis charge the .learned judge told the Jurors that they were triers of fact, and that they.were n()t to be influenced by any of his complE;lqts on the testimony; so they knew just what was their province and duty; and if by his earnest words he compelled their serious attention, he did that·which worked no legal wrong to the defendant, and .which may prove of incalculable advantage to the public. I have felt compelled to say this, not because it was necessary for determining the questions which are properly open for my consideration, but because I believe most heartily that it is the duty of a trial judge to do everything that he can, without trespassing upon the of the defendant, to arrest the most serious and earnest attention of the jurors in cases· of this nature. . Now, with these general remarks, let me notice specifically the parts of the chargeobected to. Obviously, in the argument .of counl;1el, either for the purpose of belittling this case, or as making an excuse for the conductof defendant, it had been stated that this was the first case of this kind, and the trial judge commences his charge by a statement that this is not thefil'st case, and that a case ofa similar nature had arisen in Pueblo, and, without mentioning names, simply states the general facts of that case. Can it be said there was any error of law in this? It was fair to disabuse the mind of the jury of the idea that they were called upon to sustain a nE;lW proceeding, or to try a case the like of which was unknown.·. : They need not fear to be laughed at in finding a man guilty of the offense charged, on the ground .that no one had ever thought of prosecuting for such an act before. a.gain,.he made.this reference to one of the witnesses.
STEWART 'V. TENK.
665 with respect. to it.
His choice of an adviser was rather unfortunate; that a man should go to a ,boon companion in a drinking-saloon, a bar-room loafer, to ask what the law
" And he [Hayes] went and took counsel of. '" '" '"
is on a 13ubjectof that Counsel truly say that there is nothing. in the record which perhaps justifies such an exaggerated characterization of this witness; and yet that defendant and witness met where they were drinking together is discl9Sed by the record, and it may well be that the appear/Lnce of the witness on .the stand fully disclosed his character as a mere bar-room loafer. There is certainly nothing inthe record. to contradict it. Again, it appears in the testimony that some of the witnesses testified to dMendaht's previous good'character, and upon this the court chargedin these words: "And if you believe him guilty. let not the fact that bankers and business men have testified that he is a man of integrity, by which they mean, probably, that he pays his debts, influence your verdict, or discourage you in the discharge of your duty." That is unquestioI:lably correct as a matter of law; if the jury believe the defendant guilty, no previous good character, however proved, would be any excuse for acquitting him. And if it be said that there is a covert fling at the witnesses' criterion of a man's integrity and character, that does not change the correctness of the rule onaw laid down. These are the only special matters of the charge presented. I have mentioned them in order that my silence might not carry an implication that, though not properly cognizable on a proceeding in error, they constituted an improper attempt to influence the verdict of the jury.. I think, reading the charge as a whole, any one would feel that all that the court did in his comments upon matters of fact was to endeavor to impress upon the jury the seriousness of the offem.e charged, and to prevent them from being misled as to their duty by matters extrinsic to the question of guilt. There being no error apparent in the record, the judgment of the district court will be affirmed·. The statute gives to this court the power of modifying the sentence imposed. As the jury recommended to mercy, I see no reason to doubt the propriety of the sentence, and the saine sentence will be imposed here as in the district court.
STEWART
and another v.
TENK
and another.
«(Jircuit Uourt, 8. D. lUinoi8. November 8,1887.) PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-IssUE OF LETTERs-JOINT INVENTION.
Where the evidence showed that patent No. 140,315, June 24, 1873, of an apple paring and coring machine was issued to two patentees jointly, but that the whole machine was made up of about 12 different claims for a patent, and that one of these was invented by one of the patentees alone, a joint patent on such claim and part of the machine is invalid..