United States v. Van Duzee

Citation35 L.Ed. 399,140 U.S. 169,11 S.Ct. 758
PartiesUNITED STATES v. VAN DUZEE
Decision Date11 May 1891
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Asst. Atty. Gen. Cotton and John C. Chaney, for the United states.

T. A. Hamilton, A. J. Van Duzee and C. C. Lancaster, for appellee.

BROWN, J.

This account consists of 99 separate items, which we proceed to consider in the order in which they appear in the demurrer filed in the court below, and in the opinion of the court.

1. The first series of items embraces the fees charged in 45 criminal cases for filing the papers certified up by the commissioners before whom the examinations were had. In the majority of the cases the number of papers filed by the clerk ranged from 4 to 6, in a few they were 8 in number, and in one 16. In the whole 45 cases there were filed 267 papers. By Rev. St. § 828, the clerk is allowed 10 cents 'for filing and entering every declaration, plea, or other paper.' By section 1014 the commissioners of the circuit court are required to return copies of the process as speedily as may be into the clerk's office of the court to which the defendant is bound over to appear, together with the recognizances of the witnesses for their appearance to testify in the case. In preparing the transcript of proceedings for transmission from a lower to a higher court it is usual and proper to attach the papers together, with a suitable indorsement indicating their character as a transcript, and to treat them as one paper, and if in such case the original be sent up the same course should be pursued. If such papers are sent up separately they are liable to be mixed with papers subsequently filed in the case. and produce confusion. Such transcript or papers are properly sent up as soon as the case is finished before the commissioner, and before action is taken by the grand jury. The accounting officers of the treasury in this case seemed to assume either that the clerk should select certain papers and file those only, or should fasten them together, and file the bundle as one paper. The clerk, however, is not responsible for the manner in which such papers are transmitted by the commissioner, nor is it his duty to select out the complaint, the recognizance, or any other particular paper, and say that that only should be filed. Because the statute allows the fee 'for filing and entering,' it does not necessarily follow that before he is entitled to the fee he must enter every paper that he files upon his court docket. He may make the entry upon any proper book kept for the purpose. His duty is discharged by filing them as they are received, and the exception to his charge therefor is accordingly overruled.

2. The charges for filing the oaths, bonds, and appointments of deputy-marshals, jury commissioners, bailiffs, district attorneys, and their assistants are properly made against the government, and should be allowed; and where, by order of the court or custom of the office, it is the practice to require such documents to be recorded or entered upon the journal, the clerk's fees for such services are also properly chargeable. But the expense of taking the oaths and executing the proper bonds are not so chargeable, since it is the duty of persons receiving appointments from the government to prepare and tender to the proper officer the oaths and bonds required by law; in other words, to qualify themselves for the office. What shall be done with such qualifying papers does not concern them; their own duty is discharged by the tender of such papers properly executed according to law.

3. The same principle applies to the charges for approving the accounts of these officers. By the act of February 22, 1875, (18 St. 333,) 'before any bill of costs shall be taxed by any judge or other officer, or any account payable out of the money of the United States shall be allowed by any officer of the treasury, in favor of clerks, masha ls, or district attorneys, the party claiming such account shall render the same, with the vouchers and items thereof, to a United States circuit or district court, and in presence of the district attorney or his sworn assistant, whose presence shall be noted on the record, prove in open court, to the satisfaction of the court, by his own oath or that of other persons having knowledge of the facts, to be attached to such account, that the services therein charged have been actually and necessarily performed as therein stated, and that the disbursements charged have been fully paid in lawful money; and the court shall thereupon upon cause to be entered of record an order approving or disapproving the account, as may be according to law, and just. United States commissioners shall forward their accounts, duly verified by oath, to the district attorneys of their respective districts, by whom they shall be submitted for approval in open court, and the court shall pass upon the same in the manner aforesaid.' It follows from this section that the officer has performed his duty by 'rendering' his account in proper form to the court, with the proper affidavit or oath in support of the actual and necessary performance of the services therein charged. He is not concerned with the method of verification adopted by the government for its own convenience and protection, and is no more liable for the expense of entering the orders of approval of such accounts, or for the certified copies of such orders, than he is for the expense of auditing such accounts at the treasury the protection of the government; and the court to a certain extent the duties of an auditing officer, but such duties are imposed not for the benefit of the claimant, who is entitled to his statutory compensation for the services rendered, but for the protection of the services rendered, but for the expenses attendant thereon are proper charges against the government.

4. For copies of indictments furnished to defendants in criminal cases. By the sixth amendment to the constitution, 'in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right * * * to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.' By section 1033, where a person is indicted for a capital offense, a copy of the indictment and list of the jurors and witnesses shall be delivered to him at least two entire days before his trial. There would appear to be a negative pregnant here, and it has accordingly been held that in cases not capital the prisoner is not entitled to a copy of the indictment at government expense. U. S. v. Bickford, 4 Blatchf. 337; U. S. v. Hare, 2 Wheeler, Crim. Cas. 288. Nor is he entitled to a list of witnesses and jurors. U. S. v. Williams, 4 Cranch, C. C. 372; U. S. v. Wood, 3 Wash. C. C. 440.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
50 cases
  • Pennsylvania v. Ritchie
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • February 24, 1987
    ...815 (1966); Blackmer v. United States, 284 U.S. 421, 442, 52 S.Ct. 252, 256, 76 L.Ed. 375 (1932); United States v. Van Duzee, 140 U.S. 169, 173, 11 S.Ct. 758, 760, 35 L.Ed. 399 (1891); Ex parte Harding, 120 U.S. 782, 7 S.Ct. 780, 30 L.Ed. 824 (1887). See generally Westen 108, and n. 13 See,......
  • Padilla v. Ky., No. 08-651
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 31, 2010
    ... ... Weekly Fed. S 211 JOSE ... PADILLA, PETITIONER v. KENTUCKY No. 08-651 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Argued: October 13, 2009 Decided: March 31, 2010          SYLLABUS 130 S. Ct ... of counsel. See, United States v. Van Duzee , 140 ... U.S. 169, 173, 11 S. Ct. 758, 11 S. Ct. 941, 35 L. Ed. 399 (1891); W. Beaney, ... ...
  • Padilla v. Kentuchy, 08–651.
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 31, 2010
    ...only that a defendant had a right to employ counsel, or to use volunteered services of counsel. See, United States v. Van Duzee, 140 U.S. 169, 173, 11 S.Ct. 758, 35 L.Ed. 399 (1891); W. Beaney, Right to Counsel in American Courts 21, 28–29 (1955). We have held, however, that the Sixth Amend......
  • Padilla v. Kentucky
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • October 13, 2009
    ...only that a defendant had a right to employ counsel, or to use volunteered services of counsel. See, United States v. Van Duzee, 140 U.S. 169, 173, 11 S.Ct. 758, 35 L.Ed. 399 (1891); W. Beaney, Right to Counsel in American Courts 21, 28-29 (1955). We have held, however, that the Sixth Amend......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Putting compulsory back in compulsory process
    • United States
    • Military Law Review No. 215, March 2013
    • March 1, 2013
    ...108. See Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 378 n.1 (1966); Blackmer v. United States, 284 U.S. 421, 442 (1932); United States v. Van Duzee, 140 U.S. 169, 173 (1891) (dictum); Ex parte Harding, 120 U.S. 782 (1887); United States v. Reid, 53 U.S. 361, 363–65 (1851) (dictum); Rose v. United Stat......
  • Creating Architects of Justice: A Gift from Modern Ethics to Brady on Its 60th Anniversary
    • United States
    • Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics No. 36-3, July 2023
    • July 1, 2023
    ...Government for its conduct and noted that the purpose of these provisions was to inform the defendants of the 14. United States v. Duzee, 140 U.S. 169 (1891). 15. Id. 16. Id. at 172. 17. Id. at 172–73. 18. Id. at 173. 19. Logan v. United States, 144 U.S. 263 (1892). 20. Id. at 304. 21. Id. ......
  • Frye and Lafler: New Rights or Old Responsibilities
    • United States
    • Alabama State Bar Alabama Lawyer No. 75-3, May 2014
    • Invalid date
    ...and Lafler v. Cooper, No. 10-209 (U.S. Mar. 21, 2012).2. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).3. United States v. Van Duzee, 140 U.S. 169, 173 (1891); "The object of the constitutional provision was merely to secure those rights which by the ancient rules of the common law had been......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT