United States v. McHie
| Decision Date | 28 March 1912 |
| Citation | 194 F. 894 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. McHIE et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
James H. Wilkerson, U.S. Dist. Atty., and Robert W. Childs and John F. Voight, Assts. U.S. Atty.
Francis Adams, Jacob J. Kern, Joseph B. David, Hugh Ryan, and John A Brown, for defendants and Capital Inv. Co.
It appears that in December, 1910, petitioner was engaged in Chicago in running an alleged bucket shop, claimed by the officers of the government to be in violation of section 215 of the Criminal Code, relating to the use of the mail in carrying out a scheme to defraud. Petitioner was not indicted as a defendant. On the 15th of December, 1910, George M Scarborough, special agent of the department of justice, made a complaint before Mark A. Foote, United States commissioner in respect to the existence of a scheme to defraud, whereupon a warrant was issued by the commissioner for the arrest of Sidmon McHie and 17 other persons. The only name appearing upon the warrant was that of McHie, but it appears that the names of the other 17 persons were typewritten on two slips of paper, both of which were pasted upon the warrant after the words 'Sidmon McHie.' Shortly afterwards these slips disappeared, and have not since been found, so that the warrant appears to have been issued only against McHie. The complaint filed with the commissioner contains the names of all the defendants, 45 in number, and it appears that 7 warrants were issued, 6 in addition to the one above described. On the same day Scarborough, Charles F. De Woody, another special agent, and some other assistants, together with about 20 policemen of the city of Chicago, went to the offices of the Capital Investment Company for the purpose of arresting the defendants and seizing the property of the company on the theory that it was being used in the perpetration of a felony. No marshal or deputy marshal was present, nor any person authorized to serve a warrant or make a seizure. At the time of the raid Sidmon McHie was in New York, but some of the officers of the corporation and its clerks and employes were present, about 18 in number, some of them being made defendants.
The Capital Investment Company was doing business in a number of cities in different states, having branch offices connected by private telegraph wires, and, as the special agents desired to raid all of the offices simultaneously, they conceived it to be necessary to cut the telegraph wires in the main office, and seize the telegraph instruments. It appears from the affidavits on the part of the petitioner that, when the arrests and seizure were made De Woody, Scarborough, 10 special government agents, and 25 policemen came to the office of the company, and Scarborough advanced to the center of the room, and drew a large revolver, waving it towards the employes, and calling out loudly, ' De Woody and Scarborough deny that the revolver was a large one, but admit its use.
De Woody testifies that the company had a number of different offices, and that it was the plan of the department to simultaneously arrest the managers of the different offices. Being connected by private telegraph wires, it was desired to put the private wire system out of commission, and, at the time Scarborough drew the revolver, he said, 'Take your hands off those keys,' which all the operators did, and that thereafter no revolver was flourished by any one in said offices, nor was any officer or employe of the company addressed by any officer except in ordinary conversational tones. All the property of the Investment Company was seized and taken to the government building in Chicago, including some property which was not in use in their business. Afterwards defendants were allowed access to the rooms containing the books, papers, documents, and other property seized, with the right of inspection and taking copies.
It further appears from the affidavit of Walter Wainwright deputy marshal, that about 3 o'clock p.m. December 15, 1910, he was requested to make a return upon the warrant above described against McHie and others, and was informed that 12 or 13 men had been arrested upon the warrant. Wainwright had just returned from a trip out of the city to Joliet, Ill., upon official business. He objected to making the return because he was not present and did not make any arrest, but after conferences with the district attorney and De Woody he made the ordinary return showing the arrest of certain of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Peterson
...Crim. Proc. § 210, Rex v. Barnett, 3 Car. & P. 600; Rex v. Kinsey, 7 Car. & P. 447; United States v. Mills, 185 F. 318; United States v. McHie, 194 F. 894, 898). therefore reach the conclusion that the letters in question were taken from the house of the accused by an official of the United......
-
Importing Co v. United States
...Cogen v. United States, 278 U. S. 221, 225, 49 S. Ct. 118, 73 L. Ed. 275; United States v. Mills (C. C.) 185 F. 318; United States v. McHie (D. C.) 194 F. 894, 898; United States v. Lydecker (D. C.) 275 F. 976, 980; United States v. Kraus (D. C.) 270 F. 578, 580, Cf. Applybe v. United State......
-
New Hampshire Fire Insurance Co v. Scanlon
...34 S.Ct. 341, 346, 58 L.Ed. 652 (property, allegedly unlawfully seized, in possession of an 'officer(s) of the court'); United States v. McHie, D.C., 194 F. 894, 898 (property seized under purported authority of the court's own process, a search warrant). Those cases that have required the ......
-
State v. Anderson
...for the protection of the people against such unauthorized action." (See, also, United States v. Wong Quong Wong, 94 F. 832; United States v. McHie, 194 F. 894; States v. Abrams, 230 F. 313; Blacksburg v. Beam, 104 S.C. 146, 88 S.E. 441, L. R. A. 1916E, 714; State v. Height, 117 Iowa 650, 9......