Mathues v. United States

• Decision Date: 27 June 1928
• Docket Number: No. 3818.,3818.
• Citation: 27 F.2d 518
• Parties: MATHUES, U. S. Marshal, v. UNITED STATES ex rel. MARO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

27 F.2d 518 (1928)

MATHUES, U. S. Marshal, v. UNITED STATES ex rel. MARO.

No. 3818.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

June 27, 1928.

George W. Coles, U. S. Atty., and Claude O. Lanciano, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.

Adrian Bonnelly, of Philadelphia, Pa., and George Wolf, of New York City, for appellee.

Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

On May 22, 1926, Joseph Maro was arrested on the charge of murder and manslaughter on the high seas. Later indictments therefor were found against him at the June session of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. That court, by reason of inability to procure attendance of witnesses, was unable to try him at the several terms following, and on February 27, 1927, Maro, who had meanwhile been in prison, petitioned the court on a writ of habeas corpus to discharge him, first, because, as he alleged, the District Court had no jurisdiction to try him; and, second, because a statute of Pennsylvania provided for the discharge of prisoners confined in jail who were not tried during the two succeeding terms of the court. On hearing, the court discharged him (21 F.2d 533), whereupon the United States took this appeal.

The facts, which are undisputed, are that Maro was a seaman on an American registered ship lying in the harbor of Leghorn, Italy. At the time of the alleged murder there was not sufficient tide to permit the ship being moored alongside the wharf, so she was attached thereto by long cables. While the vessel was in this position, Maro, in a fight with a seaman named Koontz, struck him on the head with a bottle, and by reason thereof the injured man was taken ashore to a Leghorn hospital. He remained there some two months, when he died, as is alleged, from the injuries so received.

Turning to the underlying question of the jurisdiction of the court, we note that, in pursuance of the constitutional provision enabling it to "define and punish felonies committed on the high seas," Congress by Act of April 30, 1790 (1 Stat. 112, 113), provided:

"If any person or persons shall commit upon the high seas, or in any river, haven, basin or bay, out of the jurisdiction of any particular state, murder, * * * every such offender shall be deemed, taken and adjudged to be a pirate and felon, and being thereof convicted, shall suffer death."

And the here pertinent part of this act was carried into section 272 of the...