United States v. Greene

• Decision Date: 17 January 1906
• Citation: 146 F. 781
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. GREENE et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia

146 F. 781

UNITED STATES v. GREENE et al.

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Eastern Division.

January 17, 1906

Marion Erwin, U.S. Atty., Samuel B. Adams, and Thomas F. Barr, Sp Assts. U.S. Atty., and Alexander Akerman, Asst. U.S. Atty.

William Garrard, Peter W. Meldrim, William W. Osborne, and Alexander A. Lawrence, for defendants.

SPEER District Judge.

Orally. The law upon this subject is not in any sense ambiguous. Section 1024 of the Revised Statutes (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p 720.) provides:

'When there are several charges against any person for the same act or transaction, or for two or more acts or transactions connected together, or for two or more transactions of the same class of crimes or offenses, which may be properly joined, instead of having several indictments, the whole may be joined in one indictment in separate counts, and if two or more indictments are found in such cases, the court may order them to be consolidated.'

Now that is the act of Congress which is controlling upon the action of the court. It specifically makes the consolidation of indictments relating to the same transactions, and which may be properly joined, as fully equivalent to the joining in many counts, relative to the same transaction, and which may be properly joined in one indictment. It is fully sustained by the decisions of the Supreme Court quoted. Nothing is offered to the contrary, save the arguments or principles submitted by one of the counsel for the prisoners.

The law in our own states accomplishes the same thing in another way. For instance, in a charge of murder there is implied a charge of manslaughter, as I understand. The charge also for manslaughter of different grades, a charge of assault and battery, or, perhaps, a charge of simple assault. There are murders which are felonies, manslaughters which are felonies, manslaughters which are misdemeanors, included by operation of law in one indictment. Now, we scarcely lodge an indictment in this court, in an ordinary case of misdemeanor, which does not contain counts in regard to which are different punishments. Take a case of illicit distillation. The printed forms of the indictment will disclose a charge for carrying on the business of a distiller without giving bond, removing distilled spirits on which the tax has not been paid, for working in a distillery over which no sign is kept with the words 'Registered Distillery' in plain letters, as required by law. Each of these offenses have different penalties attached to them by an act of Congress, and yet there is no difficulty whatever in trying and reaching a proper verdict where the accusations of these crimes are on an indictment of that sort. Now, it is not to be questioned that much may be said, and forcibly said, upon the general lines of arguments submitted by Mr. Meldrim; but, unhappily for the argument, lucid and graceful as it is, the court is controlled by the imperative language of the statute.

Now the next inquiry is: Are these acts of transactions connected together? Or, are they acts or transactions of the same class of crimes? In either case, there may be a consolidation. Let us look at the general aspect of the case. Of course.we are bearing in mind that what the court may say is accompanied by the...