United States v. Patterson
| Decision Date | 30 October 1893 |
| Docket Number | No. 951,951 |
| Citation | 37 L.Ed. 999,14 S.Ct. 20,150 U.S. 65 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. PATTERSON |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This is an appeal from a judgment of the court of claims in favor of the claimant, and against the United States. The claimant was a commissioner of the circuit court of the United States for the western district of North Carolina. and as such commissioner performed certain services for the defendants, consisting, as stated in the findings, 'of hearing charges made by complaining witnesses against persons charged with violations of the laws of the United States, and holding examinations of such complaining witnesses, and any other witnesses produced by them in support of their allegation, and deciding whether a warrant should not issue upon the complaint made.' For such services that court held that he was entitled to compensation at the rate of five dollars per day, and rendered judgment accordingly.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Dodge and Chas. C. Binney, for the United states.
George A. King, W. W. Dudley, L. T. Michener, and R. R. McMahon, for appellee.
Mr. Justice BREWER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.
The single question presented by this record is whether the services described by the finding of the court of claims come within this clause of section 847 of the Revised Statutes: 'For hearing and deciding on criminal charges, five dollars a day for the time necessarily employed.' No opinion was filed by the court of claims, but the reasoning by which the majority of that court reached their conclusion seems, from the briefs of counsel, to have been as follows: Section 847 provides, generally, for the compensation of commissioners; some services named therein being of a clerical, and some of a judicial, nature. This section was considered by this court in U. S. v. Jones, 134 U. S. 483, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 615, and in the opinion therein, on pages 486, 487, 134 U. S., and page 616, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep., it was said: These services were clearly not of a clerical, but of a judicial, nature. It was held in the case of U. S. v. Ewing, 140 U. S. 142, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 743, that, in view of section 1014 of the Revised Statutes, the law of the state in which the services are rendered must be looked at in order to determine what is necessary in the matter of procedure; and, referring to the laws of the state of North Carolina, these provisions are found:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Staley v. State
...magistrate having jurisdiction to inquire into the alleged crime." Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed.1983; United States v. Patterson, 150 U.S. 65, 68, 14 S.Ct. 20, 21, 37 L.Ed. 999 (1893). We believe it was the clear import of the Legislature that the phrase "other legal accusation" was to co......
-
Conley v. United States, 9371
...under the Sixth Amendment is much narrower than a "criminal case" under the Fifth Amendment. Compare United States v. Patterson, 150 U. S. 65, 14 S. Ct. 20, 37 L. Ed. 999, and Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43, 26 S. Ct. 370, 50 L. Ed. 652. In United States v. Barber, 140 U. S. 177, 11 S. Ct. 75......
-
Coles v. Com.
...at 593. In Code § 18.2-478, the legislature chose to use the words "on a charge of criminal offense." In United States v. Patterson, 150 U.S. 65, 14 S.Ct. 20, 37 L.Ed. 999 (1893), the United States Supreme Court stated [a] criminal charge, strictly speaking, exists only when a formal writte......
-
Goulis v. Stone
...that prescribed by the state statutes. United States v. Ewing, 140 U. S. 142, 11 Sup. Ct. 743, 35 L. Ed. 388;United States v. Patterson, 150 U. S. 67, 14 Sup. Ct. 20, 37 L. Ed. 999;United States v. Mace (C. C. A.) 281 Fed. 635. [6] It was the duty of the respondent, acting under said sectio......