Rand v. United States
| Decision Date | 25 October 1888 |
| Citation | 36 F. 671 |
| Parties | RAND v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maine |
E. M Rand, pro se.
George E. Bird, U.S. Atty., for the United States.
The petitioner, a commissioner of the circuit court in this district, prosecutes his claim against the United States for fees for services, his charges for which have been suspended or disallowed by the first comptroller of the treasury. It is admitted that accounts for all these services have been regularly presented, and that he has performed all the work for which he claims compensation. But it is objected that for some services his charges are excessive by reason of unnecessary length of papers, and for others he is not legally entitled to anything. A portion of the account set out in the petition was presented to and rejected by the comptroller prior to March 3, 1887, and to so much of his demand it is objected that the court has not jurisdiction. Precisely this question is decided in favor of the government in Bliss v. U.S., 34 F. 781, and while not asserting a conviction of the absolute conclusiveness of the reasoning of that case, I am not prepared to dissent from it, especially in view of the importance of harmony and uniformity of decisions in the courts of the United States. Accordingly, so much of the petitioner's claim as was passed upon and rejected by the comptroller before the approval of the act under which these proceedings are had, is disallowed. This strikes out $115.05. The remainder of the account, consisting of a large number of small charges, need not be considered in detail, as all the particulars fall into a few classes. They are for compensation in excess of the amount allowed by the comptroller on complaints and recognizances; for oaths to sureties justifying; for acknowledgment of recognizances; and for per diem fees, in hearing and determining on criminal charges. There is no controversy in respect to what the commissioner actually did, and if there were, the evidence is conclusive that he has charged for no service which he did not perform. Section 1014 of the Revised Statutes provides:
'For any crime or offense against the United States, the offender may, by any commissioner of a circuit court to take bail, of any state where he may be found, and agreeably to the usual mode of process against offenders in such state, and at the expense of the United States, be arrested and imprisoned, or bailed, as the case may be, for trial before such court of the United States as by law has cognizance of the offense.'
Thus the proceedings before commissioners in criminal matters are regulated by the proceedings for similar purposes under the laws of the state where they take place, and are assimilated thereto as closely as may be. U.S. v. Rundlett, 2 Curt. 41. The usual mode of process in Maine is regulated by statute. The fist steps are complaint on oath and warrant for arrest. The magistrate may adjourn the examination from time to time, not more than 10 days at a time; and the accused, if the offense is bailable, may recognize with sureties for his appearance at the time of adjournment; but if the offense is not bailable, or if sufficient sureties are not offered, the accused shall be committed to j ail by an order of the magistrate stating briefly the offense, and that the party is committed for further examination. The complainant and witnesses for the prosecution shall be examined on oath, in the presence of the accused. Upon its appearing that an offense has been committed, and there is probable cause to charge the accused if the offense is bailable, and sufficient bail is offered, it shall be taken, and the accused discharged. If the offense is not bailable, or no sufficient bail is offered, the accused shall be committed to await trial. If the accused is committed or bound over for trial, the magistrate shall order material witnesses for the prosecution to recognize, with or without sureties, as may be considered necessary; and if they refuse to recognize as required, the witnesses may be committed to prison, and remain till discharged by law. Magistrates must certify and return to court all examinations and recognizances, and for neglect and refusal are liable to attachment for contempt. Rev. St. Me. c. 132, Secs. 5, 6; c. 133, Secs. 9-17, inclusive. The proceedings before this commissioner are shown to have conformed to these requirements in every instance. The objections made to his charges are not that the services were not actually performed, or that the rates of charge are improper, but that the services were, in whole or part, unnecessary. The comptroller undertakes by inflexible rule to determine the necessary length of complaints and recognizances, and refuses compensation for anything in excess of the limit he so fixes, declaring the same to be 'unnecessary verbiage.' It is true that commissioners have power only to examine and hold to bail or commit for appearance at court parties arrested and brought before them. But this power authorizes the imprisonment of accused persons for considerable periods to await trial. This incarceration, if the party is finally convicted and sentenced, constitutes no part of the sentence, and, in most cases, is not regarded in passing sentence. It may, and often does, exceed the time of imprisonment finally imposed as a punishment for the offense committed. Accused persons are also subjected to the burden of finding sureties, and the sureties to trouble, expense, and loss of time in appearing before the commissioner to recognize. It is by no means certain that a grand jury will present an indictment against every accused person held by the commissioner to answer, or, if they do, that conviction will follow. A due regard to personal rights seems, therefore, to require that all proceedings before the examining magistrate should be conducted with care and exactness. If the technical fullness and precision essential in an indictment is not requisite in a complaint,-- a question in respect to which, under our constitutional system, there may be room for doubt,-- complaints should be full enough to show clearly the particular offense charged, and contain substantial, if not formal, allegations of its essential elements, as well as the details of time, place, and persons. State v. Smith, 2 Me. 62. If the complaint, which is the basis of all the proceedings, fails to set out, even informally, an offense against the laws; if its statements may be all admitted without confessing any violation of law,-- of what can it be held that there is probable cause to believe the party accused guilty, or why should he be ordered to recognize with sureties, and for want thereof to be confined in jail? It has been well said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marvin v. United States
...by the supreme court 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 appropriat......
-
Goodrich v. United States
...and entering returns on writs in criminal cases, are legitimate charges. Rand v. U.S., 38 F. 666; Crawford v. U.S., 40 F. 446; Rand v. U.S., 36 F. 671; Jones v. U.S., F. 410. The commitments charged for were not 'temporary,' but were in cases where the defendants were held to answer, and we......
-
Taylor v. United States
... ... line prescribes the charge for 'taking-- acknowledgments ... at 25 cents each. ' In Barber v. U.S., 35 F ... 886-888, the court allowed the commissioner there suing the ... fee of 25 cents for each person, principal and surety, ... acknowledging the bill, and such was the ruling in Rand ... v. U.S., 36 F. 671-674, in Crawford v. U.S., 40 ... F. 446, and in McKinstry v. U.S., Id ... 813, (per ... Justice LAMAR and Judge PARDEE,) as well as in Goodrich ... v. U.S., 42 F. 392-394, and Marvin v. U.S., ... [45 F. 534] ... 44 F. 405-411. I am aware of the adverse decisions ... ...
-
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 ... ...