Rand v. United States
| Decision Date | 28 November 1891 |
| Citation | 48 F. 357 |
| Parties | RAND v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maine |
Edward M. Rand, pro se.
Isaac W. Dyer, U.S. Atty.
This petition is for the allowance of fees as commissioner of the circuit court, which have been rejected by the comptroller of the treasury. As originally presented, the claim amounted to a total of $409.85. Subsequent amendments made under recent decisions of the supreme courts, in respect to fees of various officers, have stricken out items amounting to $162.75, leaving only the sum of $247.10 to be passed upon by this court. The case is heard on demurrer, and the contention by the United States is that, though the services have all been performed, the petitioner is not legally authorized to charge them or to be paid for his work. Though the items are numerous, they belong only to a few classes. A portion of these items were included in the proceeding by this same petitioner in 1888, and was then, upon the authority of Bliss v. U.S., 34 F. 781, held not to be within the jurisdiction of this court. Rand v U.S., 36 F. 671. Such disposition of the claim for supposed want of jurisdiction to pass upon its merits does not operate as a bar of this petition. The former ruling against the jurisdiction, because the demand has been rejected by the comptroller prior to March 3, 1887, must be regarded as erroneous, under the decision of the circuit court in this circuit and district in Harman v U.S., 43 F. 560.
In this portion of the petition are charged docket fees aggregating $17, prior to August, 1886. The supreme court has declared that the proviso in the deficiency appropriation act of August 4, 1886, (24 St. 274,) was general legislation intended as an amendment of Rev.St.Sec. 847, and not a mere restriction upon the use of the moneys appropriated by that act. U.S. v. Ewing, 140 U.S. 142, 11 S.Ct. 743. The enactment was then, prospective in its operation, and had no retroactive effect upon docket fees before earned, and upon the authority of U.S. v. Wallace, 116 U.S. 398, 6 S.Ct. 408, the petitioner is allowed the $17 so charged. In the petition so amended no other docket fees are claimed. The items are: (1) Recognizances of parties, from day to day and final; (2) complaints; (3) Er diem allowances; (4) recognizance of witnesses; (5) entering warrants and summons and warrants to commit; (6) copies of returns to court; (7) acknowledgments to recognizances; (8) warrants to commit from day to day.
The charges for recognizances of defendant from day to day are objected to as unwarranted. The objection has no weight. for examination of persons charged with offenses against the United States are to be conducted 'agreeably to the usual mode of process against offenders in such state. ' Rev.St.Sec. 1014. The statute of the state of Maine expressly provides for recognizance of the party upon any adjournment of an examination. Rev.St.Me.c. 133, Secs. 10, 11.
A further objection is that the recognizances exceed the length ar arbitrarily decided by the comptroller to be sufficient in all cases. Inspection of the records of these recognizances does not reveal any useless and unjustifiable verbiage. On the contrary, they are carefully and prudently framed for the protection of the government, if resort to the security of the recognizances should be necessary, and at the same time preserve the rights of defendants.
The fees for complaints are proper. Rand v. U.S., 36 F 672, 38 F. 666; U.S. v. Ewing, 140 U.S. 142, 11 S.Ct. 743.
It is suggested by the comptroller that a party arrested and brought before a commissioner upon a complaint for one offense may, without any new proceeding, be bound over, or committed to answer for anything else in respect to which, in the progress of his examination, evidence against him may appear. Upon this ground complaints, charging in proper terms distinct offenses, are declared to be of excessive length, and fees for the same are reduced. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGourin v. United States
... ... motion for bail and the sufficiency thereof * * * are ... judicial acts, on the hearing and deciding of criminal ... charge, within the meaning of Rev. St. Sec. 847, providing ... for per diem compensation.' ... See, ... also, Harper v. U.S., 21 Ct.Cl. 56, and Rand v ... U.S. (D.C.) 36 F. 671 ... And, ... indeed, this interpretation seems also to have been accepted ... by congress in framing the provision in the act of May 28, ... 1896, providing a new schedule of fees for the commissioners ... It appears from the schedule that all these per ... ...
-
Ripperger v. AC Allyn & Co.
...why the rule should be less applicable to a decision denying jurisdiction than to one sustaining it. The case of Rand v. United States, D.C.Me., 48 F. 357, at 358, affirmed in 1 Cir., 53 F. 348, without discussion of the point, appears to support the appellant's position, but we respectfull......