United States v. Hunter
| Decision Date | 01 January 1882 |
| Citation | 15 F. 712 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. HUNTER. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi |
The questions now presented for decision arise upon the motion of said Hunter to quash the subpoena duces tecum, which has been issued and served upon him, commanding him to appear before the grand jury of said court now in session, and to produce all the telegrams sent from or received at the telegraph office at Holly Springs, and of which he has charge, between the sixth and twentieth days of November last, and including both of said days, and to be used as evidence before said grand jury.
It is insisted, upon behalf of said Hunter, that he ought not to be required to produce said telegrams, and for the following reasons, stated in the motion:
First. Because said subpoena is too vague and uncertain, not specifying what telegrams are wanted, nor whose telegrams, or upon what subject-matter. Second. Because said subpoena requires said Hunter to produce telegrams having no bearing or relation to any proceeding or suit or prosecution before the grand jury, and which could by no kind of possibility relate to any crime of which said grand jury could have cognizance. Third. Because said subpoena requires said operator to use and cause to be used, and to make known and cause to be made known, the contents of dispatches which were sent and received over the telegraph lines used by him, which said operator could not do without the consent of the parties sending and receiving the same, or of either of them, the said parties. Fourth. Because said subpoena requires said operator to produce documents which are protected from disclosure by reason of public policy. Fifth. And for various other good causes.
The questions presented are very important, as they relate to the administration of public justice on one side, and to private interests on the other. Such practice should be adopted and observed as will secure the administration of justice on the one side, and, as far as possible, avoid the invasion of private rights and secret communications affecting individuals by means of this unparalleled mode of communication on the other. That the United States and the states have a right to call for and use such telegrams as may be pertinent to any matter pending before their respective grand juries or courts, in relation to prosecutions for crimes, is admitted. That telegrams having no pertinency to such inquiries are inadmissible, and ought not to be produced, is also admitted. The only inquiry is as to the proper mode to require the production of those proper to be produced and those which should be excluded. The practice heretofore resorted to in the courts over which I preside, and not objected to, and for the subpoena to require the production of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hubner v. Tucker, 14704.
...materiality and relevancy of documents summoned under subpoena duces tecum connotes personal inspection by the trial Judge. United States v. Hunter, D.C., 15 F. 712. In Edison Electric Light Co. v. United States Electric Lighting Co., C.C., 44 F. 294, 296, the court held that the question o......
-
Tharp v. Page
...49 Ark. 381; 62 Ark. 326. Simple demand for production of books is not equivalent to a motion for subpoena duces tecum. L. R. 2 Eq. 59; 15 F. 712; 3 Dill. 70 Cal. 638; 72 Mo. 83; 1 Tuck (N.Y. Surrogate) 39. Granting of subpoena daces tecum is discretionary, and the action of the trial court......
-
State, ex rel. Ozark Cooperage & Lumber Company v. Wurdeman
... ... holding in State ex rel. v. Tobacco Co., 177 Mo ... 43); United States v. Railroad Assn., 154 F. 268; 4 ... Ency. of Evidence, pp. 816-819; Condect v. Wood, 25 ... question of its production. 40 Cyc. 2170; U. S. v. Hunter", 15 ... NORTONI, ... J. Reynolds, P. J., and Allen, J., concur ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Frey v. Dixon.
...to the court out of which the subpoena was issued on a motion to quash the subpoena. This proceeding was set forth in United States v. Hunter, D.C., 15 F. 712, and has received the approval of a number of subsequent adjudications. In New Jersey, however, the only reported case which even in......