58 meatic wines. Relator's case. would be a very different one .if he had been indicted, tried,and convicted for importing and selling foreign wines, or the wines from other states, in. the state of Georgia, or if that even had been his real offense, though notsbown by the in<iictment. . Nor do I think it can be fairly said that the relator has been deprived of his liberty without due process, of law in violation of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States. He has been indicted by a grand jury for an offense' punishable by the letter of the acts on the statute-books; tried by tlojUiy, with all the forms which from time immemorial have been held to be "d,ueprocess oflaw;" his case has been heard in the supreme court of his st.ll.te, and been rejected at the supreme court of the United States a!! no.t involving any federal question,and should be considered as finalli Aecided. See Oooley, Oonst. Lim. (1st Ed.) 355; Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 537, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 111, 292. It is probablytr:ue everylegislative enactment is "due process oflaw," but w1;l.ere an alleged statute does not conflict with any of the federal and, if void at all, is only void be-' cause of the application of geneJ,'alprinciples of legislative construction, and where undersl1ch a statute a person is indicted by a grand jury and regularly tried, convicted, with fnll opportunity tomll.ke all his defenses, in a state of course, decides upon the validity Of, the statute unde.r, wh,icp it W9ce"eds, lam of the opinion that. he has had "due processofla:w," and particularly that no case is thereby made to authorize a federaJcourt to interfere and release the convict on the ground that he is in .custody in ,violation of the constitution of the United States. To interfere ill such a'case would be an assumption of appellate jurisdiction by the circuit courts in criminal cases in the state courts in which no distinctive, if any, federal question is involved. The writ of habeaB qorpU8 in this cl,\Se will be' discharged, and the relator remanded to the custody of the sheriff of Fulton county I with costs. .
Ga.,
UNITED STATES fl. POLITE
et al.
(Dz3trict Oourt, D. SoutAOa1'olina. :May 15,1888.) WICT¥ENT AND INFoRMATION-FILmG INPORMATION-SUFFICIENCY.
"
An information set out that it was issued on the oath of the office of the dis. trict attorney, but the information was not sworn to. Accompanying the in· formation were the papers of the commissioner who held the preliminary examinathilD, Ilhowing that the aCCJlsed had been arrested on a warrant issued upon affidavits, and stating the necessary facts upon knowledge, and that at .the hearing the evidence the accused was taken oath. Held, on motion to quash, that the lDformation was good.
Information under Rev: St. U'-S. § 5399, for impediIig a witness. motion to quash. T. E. Miller t for the motion.
On
UNITED STATES
V.
GRUVER.
59
C. M. Farman, Asst. Dist. Atty., contra·. SIMoNTON,J. The defendants are before the court on an information filed 'by the district attorney for violating section 5399, Rev. St., impedinga witness. Accompanying the information are the papers of the who held thy preliminary examination, including the sworn testimony oNhewitnesses taken in the presence of the B:ccused. The in· forDiationsets out that it is on the oath of office of the district attorney; but it is not sworn to. The defendants'motion is based upon the absence of an affi.4avit to the information. It is true that informations be based uponaffidavits whichshow probable cause arising from facts within the. of the parties making them, and that mere belief is .not sufficient,· . U. S. v. Tureaud, 20 Fed. Rep. 621. In the case at bar, the were arrested on a warrant issued upon an affidavit stating facts on knowledge. They were brought before the commissioner, a committing magistrate. The evidence against them was taken on oath. Thus all the requirements of the law were fulfilled. BRADLEY, J., in InBt1"l.tctions to Commissioners, 3 Woods, 502. Upon this sworn testimony the information was filed. The motion to quash is refused.
UNlTED STATES'll. GRUVER. (DiBtrict (Jourt, D. SOfl,th (Jarolina. PosT·OFFICE-STEALING· FROll THE MAILS.
May 16, 1888.)
The only offense punishable under section 5467, Rev. Bt. U. B.· fs "the steal· by a postal employe of the articles enumerated in this section ing or from the mail intrusted to him, which mail haa been embezzled, aecreted, or destroyed by him.
(ByUabtl81)y eM (Jowrt.)
At Law. James L. Gruver was indicted for offenses committed in violation of Rev. St. U. S. §§ 3891, 5467. Defendant demurred. Demurrer sustained. L. F. Youmans, U. S. Dist. Atty., for the States. G; L. Buist, for defendant. SIMONTON, J. The defendant, a letter carrier in Charleston, was indicted under two counts: One for violating section 3891, Rev. St.; the other for violating section 5467, Rev. St. The count upon section 5467 is in these words: .. And the jury aforesaid, upon their oaths aforl.'lsaid, do further present that James L. Gruver, late of Charleston county, state of South Carolina, .on the 2d day of. April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty-eight, at Charleston county, in the state of South Carolina, in said dis.trict, and within the jurisdiction of this court, being employed in the postal
