United States v. Price

• Decision Date: 28 October 1897
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. PRICE.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

84 F. 636

UNITED STATES v. PRICE.

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

October 28, 1897

Wallace Macfarlane and Max J. Kohler, for the United States.

Abram J. Rose, for defendant.

BROWN District Judge.

I do not think it is proper, and in this district for a considerable time at least it has not been the practice to remove a prisoner for trial under section 1014 to a distant district, except upon the production at the time the application for removal is made, if not before, of a copy of the indictment or information or complaint showing that criminal proceedings are pending and that he is wanted for trial in the district to which his removal is sought, and also that such proceedings are for the same offense on which he has been committed by the commissioner. In the present case the defendant was charged before the commissioner with having feloniously stolen and carried away at Washington, in the District of Columbia, certain 'United States notes' and certain coins of the United States. An indictment produced before the commissioner from the District of Columbia, charged the defendant with stealing and carrying away United States 'silver certificates,' but not the stealing of coin or United States notes. The commissioner has held the prisoner for the stealing of the United States notes and coins. United States notes and United States silver certificates being substantially different, I do not think that an indictment for the latter would be sustained by proof of the former; and the defendant should therefore not be removed to a distant district upon the production of such an indictment only. Upon an adjournment of the proceedings an indictment is produced before me in proper form, charging the felonious stealing and carrying away of United States coin being the same offense for which the commissioner has held the prisoner. This being the same offense, the prisoner should be removed for trial upon the last-named indictment.

Objection is made that no examination was had before the commissioner upon the last-mentioned charge, for the reason that the original complaint did not contain the averment which the last-named indictment contains, that the city of Washington where the offense is stated to have been committed, was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. The court, however, must take judicial notice of that fact, and I cannot conceive it to be necessary that such an...