United States v. Fowkes

• Decision Date: 05 January 1892
• Citation: 49 F. 50
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. FOWKES. [1]
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

49 F. 50

UNITED STATES v. FOWKES. ^[1]

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

January 5, 1892

The judge, before the warrant of removal is asked, may go behind the indictment. U.S. v. Rogers, 23 F. 658; In re Wolf, 27 F. 606. And some cases ruled there must be other evidence than this indictment. U.S. v. Martin, 17 F. 150; In re Burkhardt, 33 F. 25. Where the indictment shows an impossible offense, it will not be followed. U.S. v. Pope, 24 Int.Rev.R. 290. The prisoner can produce evidence on his own behalf. In re Buell, 3 Dill. 116; In re Mohr, 73 Ala. 508.

The indictment charged that the Wabash, the New York, Chicago &amp St. Louis, the Central of New Jersey, the Philadelphia &amp Reading, and the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroads each being a corporation, a common carrier, and engaged in the transportation of property wholly by railroad, under an agreement operated a continuous line from East St. Louis to Philadelphia; that they had established a joint tariff of rates for continuous carriage, and filed a copy thereof with the interstate commerce commission, for locomotive brakes, of 38 1/2 cents per cwt.; and that certain named persons, acting for the several railroads,-- among them, said Frank W Fowkes, for the Philadelphia & Reading Railroad,-- willfully charged, etc., and caused to be charged, etc., a less compensation than the joint tariff rates (31 1/2 cents per cwt.) to the American Brake Company for carrying locomotive brakes from East St. Louis to Philadelphia over their railroads. The second count of the indictment charged that said charge of less than tariff rates was willfully permitted, by means of a rebate allowed by said officials. The indictment had been found merely on presentation by district attorney, and without arrest or binding over. The prisoner was allowed to testify, and deposed that he was never in the state of Missouri; that his business was only to adjust claims for overcharges; that he had no authority to make rates; but acknowledged that claims for overcharges of freight would come before him, and that he would sign vouchers for rebates for overcharges, but stated he had no memory of the transaction charged. Further testimony of the prisoner and another developed that the prisoner had no authority to allow any drawback which would make the freight less than the through tariff rates, though he could sign a 'voucher,' which would bind his railroad for the repayment of excessive rates, which was done by signing a 'line voucher,' which was signed in turn, by an official of each road forming the through line, and authorized the initial road to repay the shipper the excess, charging each of the other roads with its quota. Prisoner discharged.

John R. Read, U.S. Atty.

Thos. Hart, for relator.

BUTLER District Judge.

The relator, having been arrested and bound over to court, charged with the commission of a crime in the state of Missouri, sued out a writ of habeas corpus; and the district attorney, at the same time, applied for a warrant of removal. On return of the writ an indictment-- found in Missouri-- charging him with violation of section 10 of the interstate commerce statute, was presented, in justification of the arrest and detention. In answer, his counsel represented that the indictment was found without previous hearing, and that no hearing (except in form) has yet been allowed him; that no evidence can be produced to support the charge; that he has never been within the state of Missouri; that he has no connection with any other railroad than that of the Philadelphia & Reading Railroad Company, and that his connection with it when the indictment was found, and previously, conferred on him no authority whatever over the freight rates, or charges for transportation, and that he had never assumed or attempted to exercise such authority; that he was simply 'freight claim agent' of the company, and that his duties as such consisted in passing upon claims-- and certifying his conclusions-- for compensation on account of erroneous exactions, in excess of established rates, and for loss of, or damage to, property received by the company for transportation. In view of these representations the relator was permitted to introduce evidence in support of them. The testimony heard, (the truth of which is not questioned, as I understand,) fully supports the representations. The case was held over for several weeks, to allow the government to produce evidence in support of the charge. None, however, has been produced.

It is urged, on behalf of the prosecution, that the indictment itself is sufficient to require the detention and transfer of the relator, and that the court should not inquire further. This must be regarded as an appeal to the court's discretion. There can be no doubt of its authority to make such inquiry. The case is before us, not simply on the motion for a warrant of transfer, under section 1014 of the Revised Statutes, but under the writ of habeas corpus; and in such cases the...