United States v. Simms
| Decision Date | 01 February 1803 |
| Citation | 2 L.Ed. 98,1 Cranch 252,5 U.S. 252 |
| Parties | The UNITED STATES v. SIMMS |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the circuit court for the county of Alexandria.
The defendant was indicted for suffering a faro bank to be played in his house, contrary to an act of the assembly of Virginia of 19th January 1798, ch. 2, sect. 3.
The act provides that 'any person whatsoever, who shall suffer the game of billiards, or any of the games played at the tables called the A. B. C.—E. O. or faro bank, or any other gaming table or bank of the same or the like kind, under any denomination whatever, to be played in his or her house, or in a house of which he or she hath at the time the use or possession, shall, for every such offence, forfeit and pay the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars, to be recovered in any court of record by any person who will sue for the same.'
Upon the trial of the indictment, the court charged the jury 'that the proceeding by indictment to recover the penalty imposed by law for the offence stated in the indictment was improper, illegal, and could not be sustained.
To this opinion an exception was taken by the attorney of the United States; and the question before the court was, whether an indictment was the proper process.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 253-255 intentionally omitted] Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a writ of error to a judgment of the circuit court of the district of Columbia, sitting in the county of Alexandria, in the following case.
By an act of the legislature of Virginia a penalty of 150 is imposed on any person who permits certain games, enumerated in the act, to be played in a house of which he is the proprietor. The penalty, by that act, is given to any person who will sue for the same.
After the passage of this act, congress assumed the government of the district, and declared the laws of Maryland to remain in force in that part of the district which had been ceded by Maryland; and the laws of Virginia to remain in force in that part of the district which had been ceded by Virginia.
Subsequent to the act of assumption an act passed, supplementary to the act entitled 'an act concerning the district of Columbia;' the second section of which is in these words: 'all indictments shall run in the name of the United States, and conclude against the peace and government thereof; and all fines, penalties and forfeitures accruing under the laws of the states of Maryland and Virginia, which by adoption have become the laws of this district, shall be recovered with costs, by indictment or information in the name of the United States, or by action of debt in the name of the United States and of the informer; one half of which fine shall accrue to the United States, and the other half to the informer; and the said fines shall be collected by, or paid to the marshal; and one half thereof shall be by him paid over to the board of commissioners hereinafter established, and the other half to the informers.'
It is admitted that, under the laws of Virginia, an indictment for this penalty could not be sustained; but it is contended that the clause in the supplemental act which has been recited makes a new appropriation of the penalty, and gives a new remedy for its recovery.
It is insisted that the words 'all fines, penalties and forfeitures accruing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Thayer
...of a writ of error sued out by the United States to the circuit court for the District of Columbia in a criminal case. U. S. v. Simms, 1 Cranch, 252, 2 L. Ed. 98. But in 1805, in another case, the United States supreme court, upon full argument and consideration, held that it had no jurisdi......
-
Adamowicz v. I.R.S.
...singulis: each must be put in each separate place. See Black's Law Dictionary 1686 (7th ed.1999); see also United States v. Simms, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 252, 2 L.Ed. 98 (1803). Under that settled principle of statutory construction, "`a limiting clause or phrase ... should ordinarily be read as......
-
Go-Video, Inc. v. Akai Elec. Co., Ltd.
...to the context and purpose of the statute as a whole. See 2A Sutherland Stat. Const., Sec. 47.26 at 215-16; United States v. Simms, 5 U.S. [1 Cranch] 252, 259, 2 L.Ed. 98 (1803). Looking to the text of section 12, the construction of the Bucyrus-Erie and Leasco courts, the one urged by Go-V......
-
United States v. Pittman
...appeals has tested even the most distinguished jurists since the early days of the Republic. Compare United States v. Simms , 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 252, 253, 2 L.Ed. 98 (1803) (Marshall, C.J.) (assuming, mistakenly, that the Court had jurisdiction in a criminal appeal concerning a writ of error......