United States v. Pagliano

• Decision Date: 27 January 1893
• Citation: 53 F. 1001
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. PAGLIANO et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

53 F. 1001

UNITED STATES v. PAGLIANO et al.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. New York.

January 27, 1893

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Edward Mitchell, U.S. Atty., and John O. Mott, Asst. U.S. Atty.

Daniel O'Connell, for defendants.

BENEDICT District Judge.

The defendants were indicted for a violation of the act of March 3, 1875, and, having been convicted, now move in arrest of judgment, and for a new trial. The indictment contained a single count, which charged that the defendants 'did unlawfully and feloniously, knowingly and willfully, import and bring into the United States, to wit, into the southern district of New York, from a foreign place and country, to wit, from Naples, in the kingdom of Italy, six certain women named, for the purposes of prostitution within the United States, against the peace,' etc.

The first point made is that the facts constituting the importation are not stated in the indictment. It is said the indictment should state whether the importation was by steamer or over land, and where from, and that the importation was into the port of New York. The statement of the indictment is that the defendants imported into the United States, to wit, into the southern district of New York, from Naples, in the kingdom of Italy, the women named. This is, in my opinion, sufficient. It was not necessary to state the facts constituting the ultimate fact of importation; and the description of the importation as being from Naples into the southern district of New York was sufficient to inform the defendants of the nature of the charge.

It is next contended that the word 'prostitution' as used in the indictment is not sufficiently definite; that the indictment should have specified the kind of prostitution referred to. In my opinion, to use the word 'prostitution,' as that word is used in connection with the other allegations of the indictment, was sufficient. There could be no mistake as to its meaning.

The next point is that the place in the United States at which the women were to be used for the purposes of prostitution is not stated. It is unnecessary, in an indictment under this statute, to state the place at which the women are to be used for the purposes of prostitution.

It is next objected that the indictment is fatally defective because it uses the words 'did import and bring,' whereas the statute uses the word 'import' only. This objection is without force. No distinction can be made in the law between the 'importations' of persons and 'bringing in' of persons. When the subject is persons, 'importing' and 'bringing' are synonymous terms.

It is further contended that the indictment should have alleged that the importation was in pursuance of an agreement made prior to the importation. The statute contains no such requirement.

The next point to be considered is whether the motion for a new trial should be granted, upon the ground that an importation into the southern district of New York was not proved. There was evidence tending to show that the women were brought from Naples in a steamer, which came from Naples to New York harbor, and there anchored. The defendants and the women left the steamer and went to Ellis island, on their way to New York city, and were there detained by the emigration commissioner. Ellis island was within the state of New York, and within the southern district of New York; but it is said that by the agreement of 1892 (Laws N.Y. 1892) it became part of the state of New Jersey, and the point is made that upon the evidence the women were imported either into the eastern district of New York or into the district of New Jersey, and that this court had no jurisdiction because of the provisions of article 6 of the amendments to the constitution, which declares that 'in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district where the crime shall have been committed, which district shall be previously ascertained by law.'

It has...