85 F. 547 (8th Cir. 1898), 964, United States v. Donahower

Docket Nº:964.
Citation:85 F. 547
Party Name:UNITED STATES v. DONAHOWER.
Case Date:February 14, 1898
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 547

85 F. 547 (8th Cir. 1898)

UNITED STATES

v.

DONAHOWER.

No. 964.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

February 14, 1898

         Edward C. Stringer, for the United States.

         Eugene G. Hay, for defendant in error.

         Before SANBORN and THAYER, Circuit Judges, and RINER, District Judge.

         RINER, District Judge.

         This is an action brought by Jeremiah C. Donahower to recover $2,000, fees earned and disbursements made by him, while marshal of the United States for the district of Minnesota, from the 15th day of May, 1890, to the 16th day of April, 1894, which were included in his accounts presented to the district court, approved

Page 548

by that court, and forwarded to the accounting officers of the treasury department, and by them disallowed.

         The testimony in the case was taken before a referee, and, after receipt of his report on January 16, 1897, the circuit court filed its findings of fact and conclusions of law allowing some of the items of the plaintiff's claim and disallowing other items, and judgment was directed accordingly. The United States prosecutes this writ of error to review the decision of the circuit court allowing certain items of the plaintiff's claim included in its findings, described in the record as findings 'F,' 'I,' 'U,' 'C,' '1,' '10,' and '11.'

         The first assignment of error covers finding 'F' of the findings of the circuit court. The items included in this finding consist of charges for fees in a number of cases for arresting and transporting prisoners from the place of arrest to the office of the circuit court commissioner who issued the warrant, and before whom the warrant, by its terms, was made returnable, although that commissioner was not the commissioner nearest to the pace of arrest. The objection to this item is based upon the act of March 3, 1893, which reads as follows:

         'It shall be the duty of the marshal, his deputy, or other officer who may arrest a person charged with any crime or offense, to take the defendant before the commissioner or the nearest judicial officer having jurisdiction under existing laws, for a hearing, commitment or taking bail for trial, and the officer or magistrate issuing the warrant shall attach thereto a certified copy of the complaint; and upon the arrest of the accused, the return of the warrant, with a copy of the complaint attached, shall confer jurisdiction...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP