RALL'EW!. tI. UNITED STATES.
817
appiicant-I take this to further remark that naturalization petitions must be filed at or before the time of their presentation, and that judgment upon them will be formally entered, as well in cases where it is adverse as in those in which it is favorable to the petitioner. I see no sufficient reason for waiving in these proceedings the incidents which regularly pertain to all others of similar character, and I have found that omission of those I have mentioned tends to facilitate the reprehensible repetition of identical applications, without disclosure of the fact of prior adjudication. The jurisdiction of the court is derived from the statutes. It does not depend upon the facts of a particular case (D. S. v. Walsh, 22 Fed. 644-649), and no one who invokes its exercise can be allowed to withdraw his cause after the judgment of the court has been rendered against him. The present petition contains several objectionable erasures and interlineations in material parts. Apart, however, from this defect, it has not been supported in accordance with this opinion, and therefore, October 1, 1894, it is ordered that the said petition be filed, and that thereupon judgment be entered refusing the prayer thereof. HALLETT v. UNITED STATES. (Circuit Court, District of Massachusetts. Nos. 3,442-3,444. October 8, 1894.)
1.
UNITED STATES COMMISSIONERS-FEES-RECOGNIZANCE OF WITNESSES.
A commissioner of the United States courts has no authority, under Rev. St. § 879, to charge for taking recognizances of witnesses to appear at an adjourned hearing before him, as the power given by it "to any judge or other officer" to take recognizances of any witness produced against the prisoner "for his appearance to testify in the case" refers only to recognizances of witnesses to appear before the court having cognizance of the offense.
2.
SAME.
The authority of a commissioner to charge for taking recog-nizances of witnesses to appear at an adjourned hearing before him depends on whether the laws of the state where the proceedings take place authorize a committing magistrate to take such recognizances, Rev. St. § 1014, requiring proceedings for holding accused persons to answer before a federal court to be "agreeably to the usual mode of process against offenders in such state." A commissioner cannot make such charges in Massachusetts except when defendant is charged with a crime punishable by death or life imprisonment, as in no case do the statutes of that state expressly authorize a committing magistrate to take such recognizances, and no authority is to be implied from his power to adjourn hearings. The approval by the court of a commissioner's accounts, while prima facie evidence of their correctness, and conclusive as to matters within the discretion of the commissioner, and where there is no clear proof of mistake by the court, is unavaliing where the commissioner clearly acted without authority.
8.
4.
SAME-APPROVAL OF ACCOUNT BY COURT.
v.63F.no.6-52
.818 lS·.. lJAAtJIl7CRE1J:rnN
J'BDERAL OJ' PROOEEDING!I;
vol. 63· ·. . :. .
can charge for copies of process and return. of. procetld, to the court where defendants were not arrested or were discharged. thl'{court having, at the requl!$t of the attorney general, entered an ord.$'idirectlng commissioners, after final disposition of each case, to returp: copies of all papers, with recognizances taken, alld transcript of the proceedings, though such requirement was conditioned on provision being made for compensating the commissioner therefor. . .AcoIllInissioner can charge for entering returns of warrants and subpoenas, Rev. St. § 847, giving him the same compensation as is allowerl to clerks for like. service, and· section 828 allowing clerks "for entering any. returns" 15 cents. A /:iommissioner is also entitled to the same fees as a clerk for enteriJigordei's of continuance. SAME-SUSPENSION BY COMPTROLLER. ORDERS OF CONTINUANCE. RETURNS OF WARRANTS AND SUBPOENAS·
. . . . A-.
6.
7. S.
AccoUllts of a commissioner, which· have long been suspended by the comptJroller, will be held not tQ be still pending in the treasury department, but to have been rejected by it. A commissioner cannot charge for more than one ackllowledgment to
9.
SAME"':'AcKNOWLEDGMENTS OF RECOGNIZANCE.
11.
A commissioner cannot charge for more than one final recognizance of all the witnesses in a case, without its being shown that they could not conveniently be together. ' . '
fenclltnts and' witnesses' recognized in previous cases for the same grand jury. 12. SAME-ORDER 'ro PAY WITNESSES. Thecotnmissioner has discretion to make more than one order to pay a case.
Ittll in the discretion.pf the commissioner to take recognizances of de-
These calileS were heard upon the following agreed statement of facts: It hereby agreed by and between the parties to the above-entitled cases, which, by it previous agretlment duly filed in said court, are to' be consolidated and heard and tried together, that said cases may be and hereby are submitted to said court for its decision upon the following facts, which are to be taken as true: First. Dudng the whole time when the services mentioned In the petitions in said cases were performed there was entered upon the docket of said court an order of court of the tenor following, to wit:
as
Actions by Henry' L Hallett against the United States for fees
"Circ)1it Court of the pnited Stat!lS, District of Massachusetts. "Order of Court. "January 11, 1882. "1. Each commissioner of this court acting in criminalCll8es shall keep a docket, in which he shall enter all applications for warrants granted by him, stating briefiy the nature of the offense, the name of the complainant, the date of i.Ding, of the wll.trant, and all subsequent proceedings thereunder; also the .names of witnesses present and examined. .At the foot of the docket In each case, the commissioner shall enter a statement of all fees and expenses aceruing.in the case, 'including his own,fetls. "2. No warrant shall be issued by a commissioner for the arrest of a person charged with having violated any of the laws of the United States,
HAI,I:.ETTV. U"I'l'ED STATES.
819
upon the complaint of any person, unless a collector of customs, or of internal revenue. or a deputy collector, or a treasury. revenue, or postal aKent, or the district attorney for this district, or one of his assistants, shall have certified as to such that in his opinion it is such an offense as should be prosecuted, and shall have requested that a warrant for the arrest of the accused be issued. "3. After the final disposition of each case before him, the commissioner shall forward to the clerk of the court of the United States for this district having cognizance of the offense charged copies of all the papers, together with all recognizances taken by him, in the case, with a proper transcript of the proceedings, in which he shall schedule the papers forwarded, and to which he shl111 add a statement of all the fees accruing in the case, including his own fees. "4. At the end of each quarter, or within ten days thereafter, each commissioner shall make out and deliver, or cause to be delivered, to the clerk of this court, a report in duplicate of all cases brought before him and disposed of during the quarter, one to be retained by the clerk, and the other to be forwarded by him to the attorney general; and a separate report of internal revenue causes so brought to be forwarded by the clerk to the commissioner of internal revenue. These reports shall be made upon such forms as shall be prescribed and furnished by the department of justice. "5. Sections 3 and 4 of this order are conditional upon suitable provision being made for compensation to commissioners for performing the services therein. required of them. "6. The clerk of this court is instructed to furnish each of the commissioners for this district with a copy of this order, to distribute such blanks for commissioners as may be sent to him by the department of justice, and to forward to the attorney general and to the commissioner of internal revenue the reports delivered to him for these officers under the fourth section of this order. . By the Court, John G. Stet'3on, Clerk. "A true copy. "Attest: Alex. H. Trowbridge, Clerk. "N ov. 6, 1893." Second. That the total amounts claimed by the petitioner In said cases for the several classes of services alleged to have been performed by him and disallowed or suspended by the comptroller of the treasury are as follows.: 1. For taking recognizances of witnesses to appear before the commissioner at continued hearings ...·................ $1,424 20 2. For commitments of witnesses for appearance before the commissioner at continued hearings, and entering returns thereof .............................·.................. 189 70 3. For more than one warrant of commitment of the defendant and all the witnesses in the same case to secure their appearance before the circuit 01' district court . 690 4. For filing temporary warrants of commitments of defendants for their appearance before 1he commissioner at continued hearings . 7 80 5. For filing temporary recognizances of witnesses for their appearance before the commissioner at continued hearings .. 780 6. For copies of process and return of proceedings in cases where the defendants were discharged by the commissioner .......................................·.····.·· 1,02380 7. For entering returns of warrants and subpoenas . 130 05 8. For entering orders of continuance ......................·· 180 30 9. All charges in certain cases not joined with cel·tain other cases .......................................·.......... 15120 These charges are suspended by the comptroller to know why the cases were not joined with certain other cases; and no information on the subject has ever been furnished by the petitioner or anyone representing him to the comptroller. 10. Charges in certain cases not tried in other cities than the '. city of Boston ...·...........·.....·..···.·..·...... , ·. 5620
820
I'EDERAL REPORTER,
vol. 63.
TlJ.ese charges were suspended by the comptroller to know why the sa.id cases were not tried in other cities; and no information on the subject has ever been furnished to the comptroller by the petitioner, or by anyone representing him.' 11. Charges for tiling certain papers. .. .. .. .. · · ·.. · .. ·.. . . · ·.. $ 76 00 These charges were suspended by the comptroller for information as to what papers were filed by the commissioner, and the necessity for filing so many papers. No information on the subject has ever been furnished to the comptroller by the commissioner, or by any person representing him. 12. For administering oaths and issuing certificates to supervisors of elections and deputy marshals................ 1,241 73 13. For recognizances of defendants to appear before the com3000 missioner .......·....·........··......·............... 14. For certain portions of compla.ints and recognizances 0.1· leged by the comptroller to be unnecessary and to render excessive the length of the documents of which they were a part 1,718 40 15. For acknowledgments of defendants and witnesses to recog28220 nizances . 9 20 16. For affidavits of justification of s11reties to ball bonds . 17. For commitments of defendants for their appearance before the comlDissionerat continued hearings. and entering 204 70 returns thereof ........·········.·.·.····.·········.·· 310 55 18. For drawing complaints . 19. For drawing complaints in excess of four folios for each 47 05 complaint ..........·.................................. 20. For drawing complaints in excess of three folios for each , ....................· 3660 complaint 21. For drawing complaints in excess of two folios for each 50 95 complaint .....................···...·················· 55 65 22. For taking jurats to complaints . 4700 23. For swearing defendants or their witnesses....·....· " ··· 24. For certain internal revenue cases alleged not to have been approved by the United States attorney for the district of Massachusetts . 10880 25. For copies of process and return of proceedings alleged to be of excessive length '" ..................· 535 75 26. For copies of process and return of proceedings in excess of 20 cents per folio for copies of warrants of arrest, and 15 cents per folio for certificates thereto. ·.. ... ... .. . .·· 321 50 27. For more than one acknowledgment to each recognizance.. 223 75 28. For more than one final recognizance of all the witnesses in . 762 25 each case 29. For recognizances of defendants or witnesses where the same defendants or witnesses were recognized in previ· ous cases for the same grand jury .............··.....·· 35 10 30. For copies of process and return of proceedings in cases where nO arrest of the defendant was made. . . .. . . . .. . · · 10 00 31. For more than one order to pay witnesses in each case. . · · 28 45 It is further agreed that all of the above charges not expressly stated to have been suspended were absolutely disallowed. It is further agreed that the complaints in the internal revenue cases mentioned in item 24 were as a matter of fact approved by the United States attorney for the district of MaSsachusetts before warrants were issued thereon by the petitioner. It is further agreed that reference may be made to the pleadings and other papers properly filed in said case, and to the certified transcript to be filed herewith ofsutlh· extracts from the books and proceedings of the treasury department as beaJ.' upon the charges sued for by the petitioner in the three consolidated cases.<aforesaid, 80 far as such pleadings, papers, and treasury transcript are not inconsistent with any of the facts herein agreed upon. And it is further agreed that the court may draw such inferences as a jury might draw from the facts herein. stated. It is further agreed that during
HALLETT V. UXITED STATES.
821
the whole period when the services mentioned in the three petitions were performed, said Hallett was a duly-appointed commissioner of the circuit court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts. It is further agreed that the accounts of said Halktt containing the items mentioned in said three petitions were duly approved by the district court as required by law. And it is further agreed that said Hallett actually performed all the services mentioned in his three petitions. It is further agreed that in the case of the United States v. John C. Cook, at the October term of the circuit court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts of the year 1862, an opinion was rendered by the court in the words following, to wit: "This was a motion made by T. K. Lothrop, Esq., Assistant U. S. Attorney, for an order to WiIliam S. Dexter, Esq., one of the commissioners of the court, requiring him to make return to the court of his doings with respect to a complaint made before him on behalf of the United States against said Cook on the 18th day of July, A. D. 1862. And thereupon the said com· missioner informed the court that the said Cook was. after hearing testimony in that behalf, discharged by the said commissioner, and that the said commissioner had been instructed by the treasury department at Wash·· ington that all charges for returns to court in cases where defendants were not arrested, or were discharged upon hearing, are unauthorized, and prayed the direction of the court in the premises; and thereupon it was ordered by the court that the return moved for be made by the commissioner. And the court was further of opinion, and instructed the commissioner, that .should be· made of the doings of commissioners in all cases where the fendants were not arrested or were discharged upon hearing, and that the ·commissioners were authorized to charge therefor." It is further agreed that the order of court of January 11, 1882, mentioned above, was passed by said circuit court 01 the United States at the request of the attorney general of the United States.
John Lowell, for petitioner. Sherman Hoar, U. S. Atty. COLT, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts). These three cases, by agreement of parties, were consolidated and heard together. They relate to claims of Henry L. Hallett, commissioner, against the United States, for certain charges in his accounts which were disallowed by the comptroller of the treasury. Item 1 is for taking recognizances of witnesses to appear before the commissioner at adjourned hearings. The authority for making these charges rests upon sections 879 and 1014 of the Revised Statutes. The power given "to any judge or other officer" in section 879 to take the recognizances of any witness produced against the prisoner "for his .appearance to testify in the case" plainly refers to the taking of recognizances of witnesses to appear before the proper court haVling cognizance of the offense, and does not have reference to the taking of recognizances of witnesses to appear be-fore a commissioner at adjourned hearings before himself. The authority of the commissioner to make these charges must rest upon section 1014:. This section declares that"For any crime or offence against the United States the offender may by any commissioner of a circuit court to take bail, · · · of any state where he may be found, and agreeably to the usual mode of pr9cess against offenders in such state, · · * 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 offence. 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 tIle case."
822
FEDERAL REPORTER,
<It was the purpose of this to assimilate ,ail., proceedings forUOIdip.gaccused persons to before a United States court to 9f the state where tltep.I:oceedings shall take place. In D.: S. v. Rundlett, 2 Ourt.' 41, Fed.Oas. No. 16,208, Judge Ourtis says:! . Is, that Jt was the of congress by these words, the usual mode of against offenders in such state,' to assimulateltll the proceedings tor .holding accused persons to answer before a court of the United States, to the proceedings had for similar purposes prpceedings should take place: and, as by the laws9f the state a necessarY, consequence, that the cllUlmissiollers have power to order a be given to appelU' before them, in those states where justices of the peace, '01' other examining magistrates, acting under the laws of the state, hate $Uch power." "My
In U.S.v. Oase, 8 Blatchf., 250, Fed.Oas. No. 14,742, Judge Wood· ruff says: . "Congress.having seen fit todfrectrthat a party accused may, 'agreeably to the usual mode of process against offenders' in the state 'where he may be found,' 'be"arrested and imprisoned, '01' bailed,' the court cannot say that a recognizance not warranted by the laws ot the state, Ilor by any other act of congress, is of any validity,"
In U.S.iv. Ewing,140 U. speaking for the court, says:
Ct. 743, Mr. Justice Brown,
"As this section requires proeeedingsto be taken 'agreeably to the usual mode of process against offenders in such state,' it is proper to lOOk at the law of the state in which the services in such case are rendered to determine what is necessary and propel' 1:D be done, and inferentially for what services the commissioner is entitled to payment. V. S. v. Rundlett, 2 Curt. 41, Fed. Cas. No. 16,208; V" S.v. ,2 Dill. W, Fed. Cas. No. 15,393."
See, also, Hallett's Oase,
281.
if any, mllstbe found in the llltatutesof Massachusetts. These statutes provide: That a connor justice may adjourn an examination or trial foom time to time, as' occasion requires, not exceeding 10 days at one time, without the cOllsent of the defendant, and that in the meantime, if the party fa charged with an offense not bailable, he shall be committed; otherwiSe M may be recognized in a sum, and with sureties, to the satisfMtion of the court or justice, for his appearance for such further examination, and for want of such recognizance he shall be committed' to prison. When the prisoner is admitted to bailor committed, the court or justice shall bind by recognizance the material witnesses against the prisoner to appear and testify at the next courtli'aving cognizance of the offense, and in whichth>e prisoner shall beheld to answer. For good cause the witness may be required to enter into a recognizance with sureties forbisappearance at court If a,:witness shall refuse to recognize to prison. Where with or without a defendant is '\Uth an'otfense punisbable wi"Ul death or imprisonment for life, th,e j1J.!,!tice may bind by recognizance the material witnesses, agab;lst the .prisoner to appear and testify at the time and place to trial ox: examination is adjourned. Pub.St. Mass. c. 212,§§ Acts Mass. 1885, c. 136, pp. 594.
It appears, therefore, that the warrant for making these charges,
HALLETT fl. UNITED STATES.
823
595. There is no express power in these statutes authorizing a committing magistrate to take the recognizances of witnesses to appear before himself at adjourned hearings, except when a defendant is charged with an offense punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Nor do I think this power should be implied as incidental to his power to adjourn hearings from time to time, for the following courts have declared that no presumpreasons: The tion lies in favor of the jurisdiction of an inferior magistrate, as the jurisdiction conferred is not general, but limited by particular statutes. Bridge v. Ford, 4 Mass. 641. As a ministerial officer, he can do no valid act not expressly or by necessary implication author280. A justice of the peace ized by law. Vose v. Deane, 7 has no right to take a recognizance except under the statutes giving that magistrate jurisdiction. Com. v. Otis, 16 Mass. 198. The statutes of :Massachusetts specifically provide in what cases a committing magistrate may take recognizances, and therefore by implication exclude his power to take them in other cases. But it is urged that these accounts were approved by the court as required by law, and that this is prima facie evidence of their correctness, which, in the absence of clear and unequivocal proof of mistake on the part of the court, should be conclusive. U. S. v. Jones, 134 U. S. 483, 10 Sup. Ot. 615; U. S. v. Barber, 140 U. S. 177, 11 Sup. Ct. 751; U. S. v. Ewing, 140 U. S. 142, 11 Sup. Ct. 743. Giving due weight to this rule as applicable to matters within the discretion of the commissioner, or to questions of fact, or even to cases where the law may be doubtful, it certainly does not apply to cases wbere the commissioner clearly acted without authority of law. Nor does it seem to lJle that the rule laid down in U. S. v. Hill, 25 Fed. 375, Id., 120 U. S. 169, 7 Sup. Ct. 510, can be invoked in this case, for the reason tbat the statute· is not of doubtful construction, and for the furtber reason that the practice of allowing these fees has not been uniform with the treasury department. Hallett's Case, 5 Lawr. Dec. 281. C. C. A. 556, 53 Fed. 348, 351, is The case of U. S. v. Rand, cited in favor of the petitioner. An examination of the record in that case shows that the commissioner withdrew any claim for this charge by amendment to his petition, and that this item was not included in the judgment entered in the circuit court. This fact was set out in his printed argument submitted to the circuit court of appeals. That case, therefore, can hardly be considered as a binding authority in this case. For these reasons I think this item was properly disallowed. . Items 2 and 5 are governed by the same considerations which apply to item 1, and therefore were rightly disallowed. Items 3 and 4 are for small amounts. The question raised is one of discretion, and hence these items should be allowed, on the principle that the accounts are prima facie correct, and therefore conclusive in the absence of clear proof of mistake on the part of the court which approved them. U. S. v. Jones, U. S. v. Barber, U. S. v. Ewing, before cited. Item 6 is important, and raises the questio:h whether a commissionercan charge for copies of process and return of proceedings
824
:rEDERAL REPORTER,
sent to. the proper court, where the defendants were discharged. In 1862 this court held that a commissioner should return all such papers. U. S. v. Cook (unreported). On January 11, 1882, by an order entered on that day, at the request of the attorney general, the court directed the commissioner,after the final disposition of each case, to return copies of all papers, together with all recognizances taken by him in the case, with a proper transcript of th" proceedpart of the order which. speaks of compensation was only intended to give the commissioners a right to refuse to perform the duty if it should turn out that they were not to be paid for it. I think this item should be allowed. It was allowed in the case of Strong v. U. S., 34 Fed. 17, and it comes within the principles laid down by the supreme court in U. S. v.Barber, 140 U. S. 164, 11 Sup. Ct. 749; U. S. v. Van Duzee, 140 U. So 169, 11 Sup. Ct. 758; and U. S. v. Jones, 147 U. S. 672, 674, 675, 13 Sup. Ct. 437. In the last· cited case, Mr. Justice Brown says: "Supposing it [the account], however, to be a question of doubt, If the court assumed jurisdiction to make such order, and the clerk obeyed it by entering it upon the journal, he is entitled to his fee therefor, irrespective of the necessity for such order being made. In fact, he would be guilty of con· tempt in refusing to make such entry. The government cannot, in this col· lateral proceeding, attack th<> power of the court to make this order."
Item 7 relates to charges for entering returns of warrants and , subpoenas, and should be allowed. In U. S. v. Ewing, a similar charge was held to be unobjectionable. Section 847 provides: "For issuing any warrant and for any other service, the same compensation as is allowed to clerks for like services." Section 828 allows clerks "for entering any return" 15 cents. This charge comes under this paragraph in section 828, and not under the paragraph "for making dockets," etc., for which the commissioners are not entitled to charge any fee under the act of August 4, 1886 (24 Stat. 256, 274, c. 903); U. S. v. Ewing, ubi supra. What the docket fee in section 828 was intended to cover is defined in U. S. v. Van Duzee, 140 U. So 199, 11 Sup. Qt. 941, and it does not .include the charge made "for entering any return." This ruling also applies to item 8 for entering orders of continuance. Items 9,10, and 11 were suspended, not disallowed. I think these charges were within the discretion of the commissioner, and should have been allowed. It is undoubtedly true that the comptroller may suspend an account of a :commissioner or other officer for a reasonable time pendillg an examination. U.. S. v. Fletcher, 147 U. S. 664, 13 Sup. Ct. 434; New Orleans v. Paine, 147 U. S. 261, 13 Sup. Ct. 303. But it Can hardly be contended in this case that Mr. Hallett's accounts are still pending in the treasury department. The accounts may be considered as long since rejected by the departUlent, and the sole question presented to the court is the legal right Ofl\if. Hallett to make these charges. With respect to items 12 to 25, inclusive, the government has no . suggestions to offer; in. view of jhe,qecision in U. S. v. Harmon, 147 U. S. 268, 13 Sup. Ct. 327, and they are allowed. Item 26, which cevers charges for copies of process in excess of the amount allowed by section 828, Bev. St., was properly rejected.
IN BE :M'ALDONADO.
825
Item 27 is for chargee for more than one aCKnowledgment to each recognizance, and was rightly disallowed. U. S. v. Ewing, 140 U. S. 142, 11 Sup. Ct. 743. Item 28 is for charges for more than one final recognizance of all the witnesses in each case, and these charges were properly disallowed upon the present state of proof. U. S. v. King, 147 U. S. 676, 13 Sup. Ct. 439. Items 29 and 31 relate to matters which may be fairly said to be within the discretion of the commissioner, and should therefore be allowed. Item 30 comes under the same ruling as item 6, and should be allowed. It results from the foregoing conclusions that judgment should be entered for the petitioner in the sum of $6,385, and it is so ordered. In re MALDONADO et aL (Circuit Court, S. D. California. No. 26HABEAS CORPus-DUE PROCEss OF LAW.
October 19, 1894.
An error of the state court in imposing a judgment on the theory that a statute defining an offense was not affected by a later statute defining a higher offense, and that an Information charging the higher offense also embraced the lesser offense, and that a verdict thereon was a conviction of the lesser offense, cannot be corrected by habeas corpus in the circuit court of the United States on the ground that defendants were <1eprlved of their Uberty without due process of law, where all the procP.edings in the state court down to the rendition of the judgment were duly had and taken.
This was a petition by Victor Maldonado and Francisco Maldonado for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that they were unlawfully restrained of their liberty by the sheriff of Los Angeles county, in the state of California, on a judgment based upon a verdict of acquittal. Horace Bell and H. H. Appel, for petitioners. ROSS, District Judge. A petition has been presented to me in the circuit court by Victor and Francisco Maldonado for a writ of habeas corpus, in which it is alleged that they are unlawfully restrained of their liberty, in violation of those provisions of the constitution of the United States which declare that no person shall be deprived of his liberty without due process of law. The petition sets forth the grounds of their imprisonment in substance as follows: That after an examination duly had before a committing magistrate an information was duly filed against the petitioners in the superiorcourt of the county of Los Angeles, state of California, by which information the petitioners were accused of the crime of having, on the 14th day of October, 1893, at the county of Los Angeles, with the intent to derail a passenger train running from the town of Pasa.. dena, in said county, to the city of Los Angeles, unlawfully placed