Hoyne v. United States
| Citation | 38 F. 542 |
| Parties | HOYNE v. UNITED STATES. |
| Decision Date | 29 April 1889 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
J. A Baldwin, for petitioner.
W. G Ewing, U.S. Atty.
This is a suit brought by plaintiff pursuant to the jurisdiction conferred on this court by the second section of the act of March 3, 1887, entitled 'An act to provide for the bringing of suits against the government of the United States. ' The claim of the plaintiff is for docket fees amounting to $505; fees for the issue of mittimuses, or warrants of commitment, where the defendants were committed to jail pending or during the course of an examination on criminal charges, $18.65; per diems 'for hearing and deciding on criminal charges,' $10; for issuing duplicate warrants, $2; for alleged excessive folios of transcripts and commitment of persons, to be filed with the clerk of the court, $11.05; making a total of $546.70, all which fees plaintiff claims to have earned while acting as circuit court commissioner, pursuant to the authority of law, in the examination of charges preferred against divers persons for offenses against the United States under the criminal laws thereof. The proof in the case shows without question or doubt that the plaintiff, during the years 1886, 1887, and 1888, was a circuit court commissioner, duly appointed and acting in this district according to law, and that, as such divers persons were brought before him, charged in due form with violations of the criminal and penal laws of the United States, on which charges examinations were duly had, and that plaintiff, in the due course of the performance of his duties as such commissioner, kept a proper docket of each case, in which nothing was entered except what was necessary to properly show the proceedings had; and that in such proceedings he issued warrants for the temporary commitment of certain of the defendants to jail, where they could not furnish a recognizance or bail-bond, pending the examination from day to day of such charges; and that as such commissioner he was actually employed in 'hearing and deciding on criminal charges 'for the two days charged. It further shows conclusively that the two duplicate warrants charged for were issued upon the request of the district attorney, in whose judgment the interests of the government required that a writ should be in the hands of two different officers in order to insure the speedy arrest of the defendant. The proof further shows that the transcripts charged for were actually filed, and that they actually contained the number of folios charged for, and that they contain no more folios than seem to be required in each case respectively. The docket of the plaintiff, kept by him as such commissioner, is introduced in evidence, and in all respects appears to have been such a docket as he ought to have kept for the purpose of making a correct record of his proceedings. I have no doubt, therefore, from the proof, that the docket fees charged have been fully and properly earned by the plaintiff. The defenses interposed are:
1. That as to $153 of this charge, (of which $136 is for docket fees $6.30 for warrants for temporary commitment, $5 per diem, and $5.70 excessive folios in transcripts and complaints,) the same accrued and had been rejected by the department prior to the passage of the act of congress giving this court jurisdiction in this class of cases; and it is therefore urged that this court has no jurisdiction to pass upon this $153 of the plaintiff's claim. And in support of this defendant relies upon the case of Bliss v. U.S., 34 F. 781. After a careful consideration of the statute in question I must say that I see no force in the objection to the jurisdiction of the court. There seems to be no reason, either in the express or implied provisions of the law, against the court's having full power to pass upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marvin v. United States
...in U.S. v. Wallace, 116 U.S. 398, 6 S.Ct. 408, the courts have been much divided. Bell v. U.S., 35 F. 889; Rand v. U.S. 36 F. 671; Hoyne v. U.S., 38 F. 542; and McDermott U.S., 40 F. 217, are authorities to the effect that the provision applied merely to that appropriation. Strong v. U.S. 3......
-
Goodrich v. United States
...U.S., 40 F. 446. Contra: McDermott v. U.S., Id. 217; Phillips v. U.S., 33 F. 164; Bell v. U.S., 35 F. 889; Rand v. U.S., 36 F. 671; Hoyne v. U.S., 38 F. 542. commissioner is entitled to 25 cents for each recognizance. McKinstry v. U.S., 40 F. 813; Heyward v. U.S., 37 F. 764. Contra: Crawfor......
-
Harmon v. United States
... ... U.S., 34 F ... 781; Rand v. U.S., 36 F. 671; Preston v ... U.S., 37 F. 417. But the opposite view has since been ... maintained, on fuller consideration, by the district court in ... Connecticut, in Georgia, and in Illinois. Stanton v. U.S., ... Id. 252; Erwin v. U.S., Id. 470; Hoyne ... v. U.S., 38 F. 542. The earlier decisions are based upon ... section 269 of the Revised Statutes, by which it is made the ... duty of the first comptroller 'to superintend the ... adjustment and preservation of the public accounts, subject ... to his revision;' and upon section 191, which ... ...
-
McKinstry v. United States
... ... able district judges have held that the said legislation does ... not take away the right of commissioners to receive docket ... fees, but only excepts their payment out of the sum ... appropriated by the said act. See Bell v. U.S., 35 ... F. 889; Rand v. U.S., 36 F. 671; Hoyne v ... U.S., 38 F. 542. The contrary ruling i.e., that the ... proviso of the said act, quoted above, was positive ... amendatory legislation, and enacted for the purpose of ... cutting off docket fees, is held by the court of claims in ... Faris v. U.S., 23 Ct.Cl. 374; by Judge TOULMIN of ... ...