IN BE WHITE.
913
do not refer to the entire. registration book of the precinct, but only to the names that may have been newly put upon it at the registration beld a few days ago, and only to such of those names as the supervisor himself had made a list of. This is altogether too narrow and technical a view to take of the matter. The contention cannot be true as a general proposition. Suppose a law had been passed redividing the city of Richmond into voting precincts. Suppose, after this redivision, the state registration and election of 1889 had been held, at which no supervisor of the United States could have attended, it being an election held only for state officers. That registration would have embraced all the voters in the precinct, being the first that was taken after the redivision. Can it be contended that a supervisor for 1890, appointed as an officer of the election for a member of congress to be held next week, is without authority to make a list of any names save those offered for registration in 1890? Such a construction would render the provisions of sections 2016 and 2026 mere empty words. The contention is inadmissible. When the law speaks of the lists of persons who may register and vote it refers to all registered persons,-to the entire lists; that is to say, to the registration books. And when the chief calls for them, and the local Bupervisor applies for access to the books in order to copy them, he should be facilitated in making.the copy.
In (O&rcuit Court, L
f'e
WHITlll. November 11,1890.)
w. D.Penn81/lvanw.
CoN8TITtlTIONAL LAW-INTERSTATE CoMMERCE-LICENSING SOLICITING AGENTS.
a SAME:
The borough ordinance of Union City,Pa., requiring all persons canvassing from house to house for the purpose of selling, inter aUa, books, or soliciting orders therefor from the general publlc,tO take out a license, and pay to the borough II fee for doing such business, in 80 far as it tOuches II citizen of another state, who, as the of a person engaged in the book trade in such other state, simply so canvassed and tOok orders for the sale of a book, the orders to be sent to and filled by his principal, isa regulation of commerce among the stlltes, and is void.
Such agent, having been arrested and convicted for so doing before a jU8tice of the peace and imprisoned, is entitled to be discharged on habea8 CQTpUB.
.
Sur Habepa Cbrpus. F. M. McOlintock, for petitioner. J. W. Sproul) for respondent. ACHESON, J. The petitioner, Albert H. White, a citizen of the state (If OhioJaB the agent, and not otherwise, of W. J. Squire, whose residence ;aJ!.d place of business is the city of Toledo, Ohio, and who is also a oitstate, was within ,the limits of the borough of Union City, in the state of Pennsylvania, in canvassing from house to house for orders for the sale of a book entitled "The New People's Cyclopedia," and v.43F.no.13-58
FEDERAL :REPORTER;
vol. 43.
as such agentlook orders in sald borough for theElale of.t1!J.e ;book from the public,-that is, from persotis' other than dealers 'in books,without having taken: out a license il:nd paid the fee fur doing business; rel:tUited' by the ordinance of the borough, ·which 'in'terms'embraces eryJ>l:ltsoncanvassing 'from house :to'houEie in theboroogh, for the purpose 'of selling· books or soliciting orders,therefor from the general pubwas prosecuted and convicted lic., 'While so 'engaged, before a justice of the peace Of the bbrOllgh for a violation of the said , ordinance, in not taking out ll.license 'and,' paying the prescribed license fee,' and'he was sentenced to pay l1'finaof$10 and the costs; and,in default of payDilent, he was arrested a writ directing his'tlommitment to the of the county of Erie, and he is held in custody by thereI:lpOlident;a constable of said borough, by virtue' of such "'rit. . Itilppears' that "The New People'sC:relopedia" is a:work fortwhicha copyright' has been obtained' underthe laws of the United States; that the 8amei8' published outside thestatei'of Pennsylvania', namely,in the states bf'NewYork and 'Ohio, and is kept for sale at thE! city Of rroled6, Ohio, by the said Squire',: the petitioner'S eniployer,'to orders taken 'by the petitioner are selltto 'be fiUed; and no:deliveries are made by ,the petitioner, nor is' any 'money for the book received· by him. His exclushre business is the solioiting of\otders for the book on behalf of bis principal, Squire, and this is all the petitioner did in the borough of Union City. The petitioner seeks his discharge on the ground that, in so far as the ordinance in'questioiitb\fches him, it is in conflict with the constitution of the United States, and void. In Robbins v. Taxing Dist., 120 U. S. 489, 7 Sup. it was heM by the supreme court of the United States that the 'statute of the state of Tennessee, en1111 ,not having licensed acting house of business 1Il the taxing district of Shelby connty,offering for sale, or 'selling, goods, wares, or merchandise therein by shall topa.y. to, county, ttqstee a' be llumful1 BuehprivilEllle1in so far as itapplied to persons from otheNtates of g()odson behalf doing business .in. other states, is a regula lion of.commerce .among the. states, and of the constitiltion of the United States, which grantstQ congress tqeupower to make sucllregulations. .Thatdecision, in my jUdgment, is conclusive of the present controverSy'.' The fact that the petitioner "canvassed from house to house," soliciting and taking orders from "the general public," is an immaterial circumstance, and",does not take this case out of the ruling of the supreme Court: The ordinance in question, as respects the petitioner, being void,alid his conviction an4 imprisonment in violation of the constitution of the United Stateg;it 'is clearly 'withintbe jurisdietion of this court, orUl.abeai corpus, to him from cust(idy. Ex parre RoyaU, 117 U. S. 241" 6 Ct. Rep."784;Minnesotci v.Barber,186 U. S. 313,10 Sup. Ct.-Rep. 862; Ei'!)(irte. Ki{ffer, 40 Fed. Rep. 399.Alid ieis ordered that the petitioner be, 'and he is, discharged; the respohdent to pay the costs. . . 1 '.':,
,EX .PARTE PRITCHARD.
Ea parte
PRITCHARD. /
(O(:rcu.ft Oourt. S. D. Ohw, W. D. August 22, 1890.) CRIMINAL LAW-VENUE-CONsTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT.
Const. U. S. art. a, S2, declaring that U the trial of aU crimes, except in cases of impeaolunent, shall be by jury, and such trial shaU be held in the state where the sai(1 shall have been oommitted; but, when not oommitted within any state, tlle shall be at such place or places as the congress may by law have directed," -relates exclusively to'trials in'the federal courts.
At Law. On petition for habeas c01lJus. H. Blackburn, for petitioner. Wm. fAttlejort, for Hamilton county, Ohio.
a.
(oraUy.) The petitioner is in the custody of the sheriff of Hamilton county, Ohio, upon an indictment for hOlllicide, found by the grand jury of said county, and pending in the court of common pleas. It appears ftomthe petition, and from the agreed statement of facts filed by the parties herein, that the offenses charged were not committed within the county of Hamilton, nor within the state of Ohio,but on bOBrd the Telegraph, while she was under way and navigating the waters ofAhe,Qhio river, between the cities, of Cincinnati and Pomeroy, Ohio, "and ",hen said steam-boat was below, in8ide, and south and southof mal:k of said Ohio river;" low-water mark upon the north side of the river being the southern boundary of the state. ,U1Jon facts, it is beyondquestiop that the court of common pleas of HamiltOD'county has no jurisdiction of the case against.the petitioner. But section 153 of the ReviRedStatutes of the United States provides. that the writ ofhabea8 corpU8"""""" '" "Shall in no case extend to a prisoner in jail. unless where he is in cltstody under or by color of the authority of the United Statl's, or is committl'd for trial before some court thereof; 01' is ill custody for an actdone 01' omitted in pursuance of a law of the United Statps. or of an ordpr, process, or of a'COl1rt'or jUdge thereof; or it! 1n custody in violation of the constitution orof a law 01' treaty of the Vnited or heinK a suhject or cilhell 01' a state," etc" (here 1'01l0w pwyisions nut pertinent to any question in this apl,lication,) "or unless it. is necessary to bring the 1'1'180111'1' int9Cuurt to testify." Now it is conceded that, unless the petitioneris "in custody in violation of tM constitution or of Ii law or treaty of the United States," he is n()t ,entitled to the writ; but it is claimed by his counsel that tho'imprisonmentofthe petitioner is in violation of the paragraph of seCtion 2, art. 3, oithe constitution, which declares that...... " trial of all crimes, excl'pt in cases of impea.chml'nt, shall be by jury. and sticbti'lalshall be held in the state where the saldcritnes shall have been committed; but, whbn not committad 'within any state, the trial shall be at ,8uch place or places as the congress may by law hav,e liirected." This', prbvision. t-elates..ex.c1usively to trials in, the. federal courts" ,nd has no application The writ will be refused.
916
1JmWr.
BEPORTER,
parle FRIDAY. Court, N. D. New Yor7c. Ootober 1'7,1890.) L 0aDmir.lt. LA.w.,..sBNTENOB-ENTRT .A.T BtrBSEQUBNT TBRH. terms of the supreme court of the District of Columbia are appointed by the 00,un in g,'enere.l 'term, f.ursuant to 25 U. S. Bt. at Large. 749, to on the first Tuesof January, Apri, and October. The rules of court proviae for the prolongation of a term only for tho purpose of signing and settling bills of exceptions. Held., that one term could not De continued after the commencement of the next succeeding term, and a judgment entered in JUly, under the heading "January Term, 1890, cont'dt " by which a sentence pronounced at the January term, 1890, ia set aside as invalia, and a new sentence pronounced, is void.
ne
.. BAHB-!:M:PRISONHBNT IN STATB PENITENTURY.
..
Rev. St. U. S. § 51541, provides that ",hen a person , convicted of an otrense against the United States lS sentenced to imprisonment "for a period longer than one year, " the sentence may be executed in a state penitentiary. Held, that a sen,t8lfce'in loch case of for, one year" in a state penitentiary is not vOld, but, if objectionable at all, is merely irregular, in that imprisonment in a state penitentiary for a period not "longer than one year" is imposed. '' 011' TBRH-HJ.RDLAlloR. ' , ,' " Rev. ,St,U. a. S pMI, provides that when "any person convIcted of any otrense United States is sentenced to imprisonment for a period longer thllon agaillSt one tear",the sentence may be e1l:6O\lted in a state penitentiary. Section 5542 provides that, "in every case where any criminQ,l convlcted of any offense against the United States is sentenced to imprisonment and confinement at hard labor," the lentence may be,ell:ecuted in a state Held, that seotion 5541 applies to oases where the punishment is imprisonment only, while section 5542 applies to oases l'irhere the punishment is imprisonment at hard labor, and where a person is convioted of aIlotrense against the United States, punisllable by, imprisonment at hard labor, the sentence may be exeop.ted in a state penitentiary though it is n()t "for a period longer than one year." Explaining In f'eMiUB, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 762, 183 U. S. 263. ,
"
8J.HB-PBIIlII1'BNTIAllY OIlTBNSB&.
Rev. St. D. C. 5 provides that a person oonvioted, among other offenses, of larceny, shall be imprisoned "in the penitentiary" for a,certain period. Section 1158 :provides thata persoD oonvicted of "shall be sentenced to suffer impr1sonment and labor" for a period not less than one year. Held that, where a person is convicted of grand larceny, sentence can be executed only in a penitentiary., ,
At Law. Application by Kate Friday for a discharge on a writ of 1tabeaB corpus. Sections 5541 and 5542 of the Revised Statutes of the United Stateaare .. follows: "Sec. 5541.. In every case where any person convicted of any otIense against the United States Is sentenced to imprisonment for a period longer than one year, the court by which the sentence is passed may order the same to be executed In any state jail or penitentiary Within the district or state where such court is held. the use of which jail or penitentiary is allowed by the legislaof the.8tate for that purpose. , "Sec. In ,every case where any criminal convicted ot any offense against the United States is sentenced to imprisonmentl and confinement to hard labor it shall be lawful for the court by which the sentence is passed to order the same to be executed in any state jail or penitentiary within the district or state where such court is held, the use of which jail or penitentiary fa· allowed by the legislature of the state for that purpose." , , aharlea A. TalcoU, for the petitioner. D. S. Alexander. U. S. Dist. Atty., and John E. Smith. Asst. U. S. Dist. Atty., opposed.