United States v. Pratt

• Decision Date: 31 December 1927
• Docket Number: No. 537.,537.
• Citation: 23 F.2d 333
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. PRATT.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Hampshire

23 F.2d 333 (1927)

UNITED STATES v. PRATT.

No. 537.

District Court, D. New Hampshire.

December 31, 1927.

Raymond U. Smith, U. S. Atty., of Concord, N. H.

Ivory C. Eaton, of Nashua, N. H., for defendant.

MORRIS, District Judge.

This is an action of debt, brought by the United States against the defendant, Lucien Pratt, to recover a fine imposed upon the defendant in a criminal proceeding. The defendant filed a plea of nil debit.

Upon hearing, the following facts appear:

On the 28th day of April, 1925, an indictment was returned against the defendant, Lucien Pratt, charging him with illegal transportation of 80 gallons of alcohol. On May 6, 1925, Pratt was arraigned and pleaded guilty to the charge, and was ordered to pay a fine of $500 and costs, taxed at $37.16, and to stand committed until the fine and costs were paid. The fine and costs were not paid, and Pratt was committed to jail. At the end of 30 days he was taken before a commissioner, examined, permitted to take the "poor debtor's oath," and was discharged. Action of debt was brought against him on the 23d day of September, 1927, to recover said fine and costs.

The defendant resists payment on the ground that, having served 30 days in jail and been discharged, he is relieved from further liability.

The case presents the question whether the defendant, having been relieved of imprisonment by being permitted to take the poor debtor's oath, is also relieved from payment of the fine.

R. S. § 1042 (17 Stat. 198 18 USCA § 641), provides as follows:

"When a poor convict, sentenced by any court of the United States to pay a fine, or fine and cost, whether with or without imprisonment, has been confined in prison thirty days, solely for the non-payment of such fine, or fine and cost, he may make application in writing to any commissioner of the United States court in the district where he is imprisoned, setting forth his inability to pay such fine, or fine and cost, and after notice to the district attorney of the United States, who may appear, offer evidence, and be heard, the commissioner shall proceed to hear and determine the matter; and if on examination it shall appear to him that such convict is unable to pay such fine, or fine and cost, and that he has not any property exceeding twenty dollars in value, except such as is by law exempt from being taken on execution for debt, the commissioner shall administer to him the following oath. * * * And thereupon such convict shall be discharged, the commissioner giving to the jailer or keeper of the jail a certificate setting forth the facts."

R. S. § 1041 (17 Stat. 198 18 USCA § 569), provides that judgments in criminal and penal cases, as to the fine or penalty, may be enforced by execution against the property of the defendant in like manner as judgments in civil cases are enforced.

It has been suggested that there is no federal statute which in terms provides that a fine imposed may be enforced by imprisonment, but it seems to me that section 1042 implies that this may be done. The real question hinges upon the interpretation to be given the...