United States v. Lancaster
Decision Date | 11 December 1890 |
Citation | 44 F. 885 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. LANCASTER et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia |
Marion Erwin, U.S. Atty., (Fleming du Bignon, special counsel,) for the United States.
Bacon & Rutherford, Dessau & Bartlett, and C. C. Smith, for defendants.
The prisoners are indicted for the crime of conspiracy to injure oppress, threaten, and intimidate a citizen of the United States and the state of New York, to-wit, Normal W. Dodge because he had exercised a right and privilege secured to him by the constitution and laws of the United States. In another court of the indictment, the conspiracy is charged to have been made and entered upon, to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate Norman W. Dodge in the free exercise and enjoyment of rights and privileges secured to him by the constitution and laws of the United States. It will be observed therefore, that the conspiracy is charged to have purposed the twofold design: First, unlawfully and feloniously to injure Norman W. Dodge because of his previous exercise of rights secured to him by the federal constitution and laws; second, to accomplish the same unlawful injury, oppression, etc., because he continued in the exercise and the enjoyment of the same rights secured to him by the constitution and laws of the United States. To both counts for conspiracy there is added the charge that, in pursuance of the conspiracy, and according to its felonious combination and agreement, Rich Lowry, alias Rich Herring, on the 7th day of October, 1890, within the jurisdiction of the court, did kill and murder John C. Forsyth, the agent of Norman W. Dodge, by shooting him in the head with a shotgun loaded with gunpowder and buckshot. This feature of the indictment is framed with all the essential requisites of an independent indictment for the murder of Forsyth by all of the conspirators. The cause having come on for trial, and the United States attorney proceeding to arraign all of the prisoners except Rich Herring, alias Lowry, who had not been arrested, the defendants, except Lem Burch, who had pleaded guilty, and Clements, who was represented by different counsel, demurred to the indictment upon the grounds: (1) That the matters therein charged do not constitute an offense or offenses against the laws of the United States, and do not come within the purview, true intent, and meaning of the act of congress, approved May 31, 1870, entitled 'An act to enforce the rights of citizens of the United States,' and do not constitute offenses cognizable by the circuit court, and are not within its power and jurisdiction. (2) The defendants are charged with murder and with conspiracy, which is a misjoinder of offenses, with different punishments. (3) That because a decree mentioned in the indictment as a muniment of title of Norman W. Dodge is not set out, it is a conclusion of law and not of fact that said decree became and was a muniment of title. To these grounds the additional ground was added to the demurrer by amendment, namely, that the indictment does not set forth what is the statute or law of the United States which secured to Norman W. Dodge the right or privilege which the indictment charged the conspiracy was formed to prevent. The indictment is framed under sections 5508 and 5509 of the Revised Statutes, which read as follows:
The material portion of the indictment which set out and find the nature of the right of Norman W. Dodge, and which describe the alleged conspiracy to injure and oppress him, etc., because of its exercise, and because he had exercised the same, are as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brewer v. Hoxie School District No. 46
...States, 9 Cir., 266 F. 881; the right to enforce a decree of a federal court by contempt proceedings, United States v. Lancaster, C.C.W.D.Ga., 44 F. 885 and 896, 10 L.R.A. 333; and the right to hold federal office, McDonald v. United States, 8 Cir., 9 F.2d 506; see also United States v. Pat......
-
United States v. Ellis
...28 L.Ed. 673); to the right to be protected in the execution and enforcement of a decree of a United States Circuit Court (United States v. Lancaster, C.C., 44 F. 885); to the right to the equal protection of the laws (United States v. Blackburn, Fed.Cas.No. 14,603); to a witness in his rig......
-
Haywood v. United States
... ... Foreign governments, foreign and domestic ... corporations, individuals who were not citizens, all sold war ... supplies to our government, equally with citizens. No case ... was made under count 2. United States v. Cruikshank, ... 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588; United States v. Lancaster ... (C.C.) 44 F. 885, 10 L.R.A. 333; Lackey v. United ... States, 107 F. 114, 46 C.C.A. 189, 53 L.R.A. 660; ... United States v. Eberhart (C.C.) 127 F. 254. If ... Congress, under its war power, had limited the production of ... war supplies to citizens, there would be an analogy to ... ...
-
State v. Wisman
...25 S.W. 276, 15 Ky. Law Rep. 620; Thomas v. People, 113 Ill. 531; Commonwealth v. Rogers, 181 Mass. 184, 63 N.E. 421. In U.S. v. Lancaster, supra, it was that there was a misjoinder of a count for conspiracy with a count for murder; that the punishment of the two offenses were different, an......