In re Huttman

Citation70 F. 699
PartiesIn re HUTTMAN.
Decision Date01 November 1895
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Kansas

'Your petitioner, Henry Huttman, respectfully represents and shows that he is a citizen of Sedgwick county, in the state of Kansas, and that he is now unjustly and unlawfully detained in custody by B. F. Royse, sheriff of said county, by virtue of a warrant of commitment issued by the district court of said Sedgwick county, a copy of which is hereto attached marked 'Exhibit A.' Your petitioner further shows that he is in the employ of the United States as deputy revenue collector of the United States for the Fourth subdivision of the district of Kansas; that on the 14th day of September, 1895, he was by said sheriff served with subpoena duces tecum, issued out of said district court of Sedgwick county, whereby he was commanded to appear in said last-named court on the 18th day of September, 1895, as a witness on behalf of the state in a criminal action then and now pending in said last-named court, entitled 'State of Kansas vs. Davidson,' and to then and there produce and exhibit as evidence the records of the office of the collector of internal revenue for the district of Kansas, so far as the said records might show official transactions between the said collector of internal revenue and his subordinates and the defendant in said criminal action touching an application for a special retail liquor dealer's tax stamp supposed to have been made by said defendant to said collector, or your petitioner, acting for him, and the issuance to said defendant of such special tax stamp by said collector, or your petitioner, acting for him that your petitioner, as directed by said subpoena personally appeared in said district court of Sedgwick county on the 18th day of September, 1895, and was sworn as a witness on behalf of the state in said criminal action, and was interrogated by the attorney for the state touching the foregoing records from the office of the collector of internal revenue for the district of Kansas; that thereupon the attorney of the United States for the district of Kansas (being requested so to do by the commissioner of internal revenue) moved in said state court to quash said subpoena duces tecum so far as it required or commanded the production and exhibition of said records as evidence in said criminal action, which said motion to quash was by said state court on the 19th day of September, 1895, granted and sustained; that thereafter your petitioner was required by said state court, under said subpoena, to be and remain in attendance on its sessions as a witness in said criminal case, and on the 20th and 21st days of September, 1895, was called and sworn as a witness therein on behalf of the state; that on this 23d day of September your petitioner was interrogated, and asked to state what, if any, statements or communications had been made by the defendant in said criminal case to your petitioner touching an application alleged to have been made by said defendant to your petitioner (acting for said collector of internal revenue) for a retail liquor dealer's special tax stamp; and that your petitioner replied to such questions, in substance and effect, that said defendant had made no statements or communications to your petitioner save and except such as were required by law to be and were reduced to writing for the purpose of making such writings a part of the records in the office of said collector of internal revenue; and that all oral statements made by the defendant to your petitioner were made to him in his official capacity, aforesaid, for the purpose of reducing them to writing. And your petitioner further shows that he also stated to said state court, in substance, that all such statements were extorted from said defendant by law, for revenue purposes alone; that the information so obtained was privileged; that said records are required to be kept in the office of said collector; that your petitioner had no authority to produce them in said state court; that such production would interfere with the performance of his duties by said collector, and tend to defeat the government in the collection of its revenues; that all statements which might be made by your petitioner would be statements of the contents of said records; and that your petitioner, for the foregoing reasons, and because he was so instructed by the commissioner of internal revenue, by official regulation made conformably to law, respectfully declined to answer said interrogatories. And your petitioner further shows that upon his so declining to answer said questions, and solely by reason thereof, the said district court ordered your petitioner committed for contempt of said state court, and until he did answer such questions; and that, therefore, the commitment hereinbefore described was issued and served, and that solely by reason thereof your petitioner is now held in custody and deprived of his liberty by said B. F. Royse, sheriff of said Sedgwick county, Kansas. And your petitioner further shows that he has not declined to testify, in obedience to said subpoena, as to any fact within his knowledge other than as aforesaid, but has simply declined to testify as to the contents of the records of the office of collector of internal revenue for the district of Kansas, and as to statements made to him as hereinbefore set forth, and that neither the contents of said records nor said statements are proper evidence in said state court; and said state court cannot lawfully compel the contents of said records to be disclosed, nor lawfully compel your petitioner to divulge said statements. Wherefore, to be relieved of said unlawful detention and imprisonment, your petitioner prays that a writ of habeas corpus, to be directed to said B. F. Royse, sheriff of Sedgwick county, Kansas, may issue in this behalf, so that your petitioner may be forthwith brought before this court to do, submit to, and receive what the law may direct.'

W. C Perry,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Pratt, In re, Cr. 37534
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 3, 1980
    ...In re Valecia Condensed Milk Co., (7 Cir.), 240 F. 310; Stegall v. Thurman, (D.C.), 175 F. 813; In re Weeks, (D.C.), 82 F. 729; In re Huttman, (D.C.), 70 F. 699; Hubbard v. Southern Ry. Co., (D.C.), 179 F.Supp. 244.)" (People v. Parham, supra, 60 Cal.2d at p. 381, 33 Cal.Rptr. 497, 384 P.2d......
  • People v. Parham
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • September 12, 1963
    ...922; In re Valecia Condensed Milk Co., 7 Cir., 240 F. 310; Stegall v. Thurman, D.C., 175 F. 813; In re Weeks, D.C., 82 F. 729; In re Huttman, D.C., 70 F. 699; Hubbard v. Southern Ry. Co., D.C., 179 F.Supp. 244.) Defendant contends that because the signed statements were not produced he was ......
  • Stegall v. Thurman
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • January 27, 1910
    ...States v. Barrows, 1 Abb. (U.S.) 351, 24 Fed.Cas.No. 14,529; United States v. Hutton, 10 Ben. (U.S.) 268, 26 Fed.Cas.No. 15,433; In re Huttman (D.C.) 70 F. 699; In re Weeks (D.C.) 82 F. 729; United States rel. Flynn v. Fuellhart (C.C.) 106 F. 911; In re Lamberton (D.C.) 124 F. 446; Boske v.......
  • Monroe Cider Vinegar & Fruit Co. v. Riordan
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • February 20, 1922
    ... ... conflict with expressed statutory provision. U.S. v ... Grimaud, 220 U.S. 506, 31 Sup.Ct. 480, 55 L.Ed. 563; ... U.S. v. Morehead, 243 U.S. 607, 37 Sup.Ct. 458, 61 ... L.Ed. 926. The acts of the Commissioner are presumed to be ... the acts of the Secretary of the Treasury. In re Huttman ... (D.C.) 70 F. 699. Section 628 provides that soft drinks ... sold by the manufacturer or producer 'in bottles or other ... closed containers ' imposes a tax equivalent to 10 per ... cent. of the price for which so sold. The manufacturer in the ... course of his business may agree to make a ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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