United States v. Ridgewood Garment Co., 38548.
| Decision Date | 26 March 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 38548.,38548. |
| Citation | 44 F. Supp. 435 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. RIDGEWOOD GARMENT CO., Inc., et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Harold M. Kennedy, U. S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N. Y. (John K. Carroll, Sp. Asst. to U. S. Atty., of New York City and Mario Pittoni, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Lynbrook, N. Y., of counsel), for the Government.
Wegman & Climenko, of New York City (Jesse Climenko, of New York City, of counsel), for defendants.
This opinion is rendered at the time of the imposition of sentence.
The corporate defendant as well as each of the individual defendants pleaded guilty to three counts of the indictment herein.
The corporate defendant was sentenced to pay a fine of one hundred dollars on each of the three counts to which it had pleaded guilty and nothing further need be said about it.
The individual defendants were each sentenced to pay a fine of fifty dollars on each of the three counts to which he had pleaded guilty and to stand committed until the fines be paid, or he be otherwise discharged according to law.
The only question as to which I feel an expression of my opinion should be given is as to the power of the court to adjudge that each of the individual defendants stand committed until the fine be paid or he be otherwise discharged according to law?
The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, in so far as is necessary for consideration here, reads as follows: 29 U.S.C.A. § 216(a).
This is an unusual way of expressing what was clearly intended by the Congress, that there should be no imprisonment as a part of the punishment, but only a fine.
There is a clearly understood distinction between imprisonment as a punishment for the offense, which is for a specified time and imprisonment until a fine is paid, which is not for a specified time by way of punishment, but is coercive in its nature, and designed to compel obedience to the Judgment of the court. Ex parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727, 24 L.Ed. 877.
The authority of the court to commit a defendant to jail until a fine be paid or he be otherwise discharged according to law has been sustained. Ex parte Barclay, C.C., 153 F. 669.
That practice has been impliedly recognized by jointly construing Title 18 U.S.C. A. §§ 569 and 641. Ex parte Barclay, supra, 153 F. at page 671; United States v. Wampler, D.C., 10 F.Supp. 609, 610; Chapman et al. v. United States, 5 Cir., 10 F.2d 124, 125; Hill v. United States ex rel. Wampler, 298 U.S. 460, 56 S.Ct. 760, 80 L.Ed. 1283.
Under a statute providing only for the imposition of a fine it has been generally held that the court has authority to provide in its judgment that the defendant shall be imprisoned until such time as the fine is paid, or the defendant discharged according to law. Ex parte Barclay, supra; Ex parte Jackson, supra; United States v. Pratt, D.C., 23 F.2d 333.
In United States v. Walter H. Anderson,1 D.C. E.D. Va...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. United Mine Workers of America Same v. Lewis, John United Mine Workers of America v. United States Lewis, John v. Same United Mine Workers of America v. Same
...United States, 1 Cir., 126 F.2d 370, 379, or perhaps that execution issue against the contemnor's property. See United States v. Ridgewood Garment Co., D.C., 44 F.Supp. 435, 436. Compare Rev.Stat. § 1041, 18 U.S.C. § 569, 18 U.S.C.A. § 569, with 38 Stat. 738, 28 U.S.C. § 387, 28 U.S.C.A. § ......
-
U.S. v. Estrada De Castillo
...v. Illinois, supra, 399 U.S. at 240, 90 S.Ct. 2018; Wildeblood v. U. S. (1960) 109 U.S.App.D.C. 163, 284 F.2d 592; U. S. v. Ridgewood Garment Co. (E.D.N.Y.1942) 44 F.Supp. 435.) Thus, it is improper to sentence to a fixed period upon default as a punitive measure; rather, the defendant must......
-
Folmer Graflex Corporation v. Graphic Photo Service, 972 Civ. A.
... ... the trade-mark "Graphic" registered in the United States Patent Office on December 4, 1906 by ... Warner & Co. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 265 U.S. 526, 44 S.Ct. 615, ... ...
-
Vitagliano v. U.S.
...to the court's judgment imposing that penalty. Williams v. Illinois, supra, 399 U.S. at 240, 90 S.Ct. 2018; United States v. Ridgewood Garment Co., 44 F.Supp. 435, 436 (E.D.N.Y.1942); People v. Saffore, 18 N.Y.2d 101, 103, 271 N.Y.S.2d 972, 218 N.E.2d 686 Imprisonment for the period of comm......