« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of | under the United States within Act March 3, the United States extends to suit by Virginia 1885, c. 355, § 2, 23 Stat. 443 (U. S. Comp. St. against West Virginia to determine the amount 1901, p. 572], defining appellate jurisdiction of due the former by the latter of the public debt Supreme Court.-Territory of New Mexico v. of Virginia assumed by West Virginia when cre- Denver & R. G. R. Co., 1. ated a state. - Commonwealth of Virginia v. State of West Virginia, 732.
*Some sum must be in dispute to sustain ap
pellate jurisdiction of United States Supreme 10. Questions certified to Supreme Court over Supreme Courts of territories which
Court from Circuit Court of Ap- is conferred by Act March 3, 1885, c. 355, $ 2, peals.
23 Stat. 443 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 572], A question containing more than a single without regard to the sum in dispute in cases proposition of law cannot be certified by a Cir- involving validity of statute or authority exercuit Court of Appeais to the Supreme Court of cised under the United States.-Territory of the United States.—Quinlan v. Green County, New Mexico v. Denver & R. G. R. Co., 1. 505.
*Where matter in dispute is a right of conA question of mixed law and fact, on which signors to have consignments shipped by comthe whole case turns, cannot be certified by a mon carrier to their destination held to satisfy Circuit Court of Appeals to the United States requirements of Act March 3, 1885, c. 355, § 2, Supreme Court.-Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. 23 Stat. 443 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 572), Williams, 559.
conferring on Supreme Courts of the United
States appellate jurisdiction over Supreme $11. Review by Supreme Court of Court of territories.-Territory of New Mexico
decisions of circuit courts and v. Denver & R. G. R. Co., 1.
district courts. *Appeal under Act June 22, 1860, c. 188 (12 *Determination by Supreme Court of territory Stat. 85, 87) 11, to the Supreme Court, if in habeas corpus as to custody of a minor held decree of district court in private land claim not appealable to Supreme Court of the United cases is against the United States, held other States under Rev. St. U. S. § 1909.-New York wise provided by law within Act March 3, 1891, Foundling Hospital v. Gatti, 53. c. 517, 26 Stat. 828 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 550), § 6, making Circuit Court of Appeals the states in its opinion that on a prior appeal it
Where the Supreme Court of the territory proper tribunal. — United States v. Dalcour, 58. had made a full statement and findings of fact,
In deciding the question of jurisdiction be- and that, finding the record the same as in its low, shown by the certificate of court to have former appeal, judgment is affirmed, there is a been raised, the Supreme Court cannot re- finding of facts on which review can be had in sort to the statements in the certificate to de- the Supreme Court of the United States by termine elements of decision.-C. H. Nichols writ of error.-National Live Stock Bank v. Lumber Co. v. Franson, 102.
First Nat. Bank, 79. The certificate of federal judge may be con- *Validity of authority exercised under the sidered by the Supreme Court on direct review, United States held not drawn in question so under Act March 3, 1891, c. 517, 26 Stat. 826 as to sustain appeal to the Supreme Court (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 488), to supply fail- from the Court of Appeals of the District of ure of record to show the raising of question Columbia, under Code D. C. $ 233, by petition of jurisdiction.-C. H. Nichols Lumber Co. v. for mandamus to compel restoration to position Franson, 102.
in classified civil service of a clerk on the *Failure of certificate of federal Circuit Court ground of an alleged illegal dismissal.-- United to show the exact nature of the jurisdictional States v. Taft, 148. question relied on to sustain appeal to Supreme Court held not to defeat the jurisdiction of the States from decree of District Court of Porto
An appeal lies to Supreme Court of the United latter court.-City of Chicago v. Mills, -06.
Rico in a suit by a wife for liquidation of A case cannot be brought up to the Supreme community exceeding $5,000.-Garroziv. DasCourt of the United States from a federal tas, 224. Circuit Court, under Act March 3, 1891, c. 517, § 5, 26 Stat. 827 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901,
Statement of facts by territorial Supreme p. 488], where jurisdiction challenged is not Court will not be held defective on appeal to that of the court rendering decree, but that of the Supreme Court of the United States bea court which rendered a former decree, set up cause confused.-Crowe v. Trickey, 275; Same as the basis of the title in suit.-Empire State- v. Harmon, 280. Idaho Mining & Developing Co. v. Hanley, 476.
Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the A case in which contention is made that decree United States determined i on appeal from violates the right of trial by jury and to due territorial Supreme Court.-Crowe v. Trickey, process of law does not involve construction of 275; Same y. Harmon, 280. Constitution, within Act March 3, 1891, c. 517, $ 5, 26 Stat. 827 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p.
The contention that, because the District 488), authorizing direct appeals to the federal Court of the United States for the district of Supreme Court, where real issue was as to Porto Rico is required, by Act April 12, 1900, whether such prior decree was res judicata.-C. 191, $ 34, 31 Stat. 77, to proceed as a federal Empire State-Idaho Mining & Developing Co. Circuit Court, a term of that court held at v. Hanley, 476.
Mayaguez is a “special,” as contradistinguished
from a "regular," term, within Rev. St. U. S. $ 12. - – Review by Supreme Court of $ 670 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 545), forbidding
decisions of territorial courts and jury trials at special terms, heid too clearly lack
courts of District of Columbia. ing in merit to sustain a writ of error from the *Controversy as to right of territorial Legis- Supreme Court, in view of requirement of Rev. lature to pass a specified law under the power St. U. S. 88 664-669 [U. s. Comp. St. 1901, conferred by Rev. St. U. S. § 1851, in- pp. 543-545], that special terms of Circuit volves the validity of an authority exercised | Courts are to be held where regular terms are
*Point annotated. See syllabus.
held.-American R. Co. of Porto Rico v. Cas- | that he did represent both classes of creditors. tro, 466; Same v. De Castro, 466.
-Frank v. Vollkommer, 596. Writ of error from the federal Supreme Court *Decisions of state courts on questions of to the Supreme Court of the territory of Ha- fact are not reviewable by writ of error from waii, which would not lie when final judgment Supreme Court of the United States.-Chapman was entered, cannot be sustained as an exer- & Dewey Land Co. v. Bigelow, 679. cise of appellate jurisdiction conferred by Act March 3, 1905, c. 1465, § 3, 33 Stat. 1035. $ 14. Review by Supreme Court of amending Act April 30, 1900, c. 339, $ 86, 31
decisions of state courts as affectStat. 141, 158, because a petition for rehearing
ed by nature of decision. in the territorial court was not denied by it un- able cause for beginning a trade-mark in
Decision of state court that there was probtil the later statute went into effect.—Harrison fringement suit in the federal court held not v. Magoon, 577.
reviewable in the Supreme Court of the United $ 13. Review by Supreme Court of States as assuming that a decree entered in the
decisions of state courts in gen- federal court was wrong, whereas not to aseral.
sume it to be correct is to fail to give it A judgment of the highest court of a state full faith under Rev. St. U. S. $ 905 [U. S. reversing the trial court, and upholding against Comp. St. 1901, p. 677].—Burt v. Smith, 37. a pre-emptor a patent of the United States *Whether or not a state court exceeded its under Act Feb. 25, 1867, c. 77, 14 Stat. 409, functions under the state Constitution cannot will not be reversed on presumption as to what give rise to a question respecting due process of the evidence might have been where the testi-law sustaining the appellate jurisdiction of mony though reported by referee is not preserved the Supreme Court of the United States.-Burt in the record.-Andrews v. Eastern Oregon Land v. Smith, 37. Co., 42.
*A federal question as to validity of a paving The question whether the California Legis- assessment against a street railway company is lature could enact Act April 2, 1866, ratifying not open on writ of error from Supreme Court conveyances by the city of Monterey of pueblo of the United States to a state court, where lands confirmed to that city by the United States the latter based its ruling on its view as to and afterwards patented held not so unsubstan- scope of application of railway company for tial as to justify dismissal of writ of error to relief from the assessment and the pleadings, state court.-City of Monterey v. Jacks, 67. and no error thereto is claimed.–Fair Haven
Contention that proceedings under Gen. St. & W. R. Co. v. City of New Haven, 74. Conn. $$ 3694, 3695, by railway company, which *Certificate of a state court that defendant is lessee of another railway, and owner of three- railroad company, in a suit to recover damfourths of its stock, to condemn outstanding ages because of violation of quarantine regshares owned by one who refused to agree to ulations of the Secretary of Agriculture, under terms of purchase violate due process of law Act Feb. 2, 1903, c. 349, 32 Stat. 791 [U. S. clause of amendment 14, and impair contract Comp. St. Supp. 1905, p. 613], insisted that obligations, held not so frivolous as to require such statute was unconstitutional and did not the dismissal of writ
of error from Supreme authorize such regulations, removes any doubt Court of the United States to a state couri-- as to whether a federal question was raised Offield v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 72. within Rev. St. U. S. § 709 [U. S. Comp. St.
1901, p. 575], where after demurrer to the an*An inferior state court is the final court swer judgment was rendered against defendof the state where the federal question can be ant.-Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. McKendree, 153; decided, and is the court to which a writ of Same v. Edwards, 159. error from the Supreme Court must be directed, where the highest state court dismissed a writ
*Any unconstitutional discrimination in Laws of error to the inferior court for want of juris- N. C. 1905, c. 538, relating to dealing in diction.-Western Union Telegraph Co. futures, held not to be considered on error from Hughes, 162.
the Supreme Court of the United States to
review a conviction under that act because of *The construction given by the highest court insufficiency of record.-Gatewood v. State of of the state to a statute of the state is con, North Carolina, 167. clusive on the Supreme Court of the United States.-Gatewood v. State of North Carolina, Const. 1. S. amend. 14, to enact Laws N. C.
*The power of the state, consistently with 167.
1905, c. 538, prohibiting dealing in futures. Question whether
whether schedule of interstate which raises a presumption of guilt on proof of freight rates filed with interstate commerce the doing of certain acts, cannot be considered commission was posted as required by the act on writ of error from the Supreme Court of the to regulate commerce, held not open in the United States to review a conviction under Supreme Court of the United States on writ of that act.-Gatewood v. State of North Carolina, error to a state court.—Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. 167. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 350.
*There was no decision of a federal question *Findings of fact, by which it is determined essential to sustain writ of error from Supreme whether certain transactions were invalid un- Court of the United States where highest state der the bankrupt act, held conclusive on the Su- court dismissed an appeal for defect of parties. preme Court of the United States in reviewing -Newman v. Gates, 220. the judgment of a state court.-Eau Claire Nat.
*Contest over a state office dependent on appliBank V. Jackman, 391.
cation of the state Constitution on the construcIf necessary for trustee in bankruptcy to rep- tion of a provision of the state law held not resent judgment and simple contract creditors to involve a federal question.-Elder v. People of when attacking chattel mortgage given by bank- State of Colorado, 223. rupt, it will be presumed on writ of error from *Claim of right under an "authority exerthe federal Supreme Court to the state court cised under the United States," Rev. St. U. S.
*Point annotated. See syllabus.
$ 709 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 575), defining | Supreme Court.-Patterson v. People of State the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the of Colorado, 556. United States over state courts, held presented by contention that a Montana statute was au- did not constitute a contempt held not a ques,
The objection that certain published articles thorized by Enabling Act Feb. 22, 1889, c. tion to sustain a writ of error from the federal 180, 25 Stat. 676.-State of Montana v. Rice, Supreme Court to a state court.-Patterson v. 281.
People of State of Colorado, 556. Question as to validity of state law under federal Constitution held. not necessarily in
A decision of a state court on questions of volved because state law might have been as: law cannot be reviewed in United States Susailed under the federal Constitution on grounds preme Court as presenting a question of the similar to those actually raised.Osborne v. contrary to previous decisions of the same
violation of Const. U. S. Amend. 14, because Clark, 319.
court.-Patterson v. People of State of ColoraReferences to the Dartmouth College Case in do, 556. opinions of state courts held not to show that
Objections that information in contempt was the contract clause of the federal Constitution was relied on to invalidate certain legislation, not supported by affidavit until after it was so as to sustain writ of error to Supreme Court filed and the suits referred to were not then of the United States.-Osborne v. Clark, 319. pending present question of local law, which
will not sustain writ of error from the federal Question whether a state court can grant Supreme Court.-Patterson v. People of State relief to a shipper because of an unreasonable of Colorado, 556. freight rate for interstate shipment, when such
Decision of highest state court that accused rate has been filed with interstate commerce commission, held to sustain writ of error from has been tried in accordance with the local prothe federal Supreme Court to a state court.--cedure cannot be reviewed in Supreme Court of Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., federal question was involved because accused 350.
was a subject of Great Britain.-Barrington v. * Judgment of the highest court of a 'state State of Missouri, 582. sustaining a statute, challenged as repugnant to the federal Constitution, is reviewable in the fecting jurisdiction of the federal Supreme
*Citizenship of parties is immaterial as afTurf Ass'n v. Greenberg, 384.
Court under Rev. St. U. S. § 709 [U. S. Comp.
St. 1901, p. 575], of writ of error to the state *Judgment of the highest state court in favor court.-Barrington v. State of Missouri, 582. of a trustee in bankruptcy in an action brought
Demurring to indictment on the ground of inby him may be reviewed by the federal Supreme Court.-Eau Claire Nat. Bank v. Jackman, 391. federal question of sufficient merit to sustain
a Decision of a state court in which rights un- writ of error to the Supreme Court of the Unitder statute of the United States were claimed ed States.-Barrington v. State of Missouri, 582. by defendant held reviewable in the Supreme
Admission of evidence which the highest state Court of the United States.-Hammond
court decides did not involve rights of accused Whittredge, 396.
under state Constitution cannot involve quesA carrier's denial that it was bound by law tion of due process of law.-Barrington v. State to receive as a connecting carrier an interstate of Missouri, 582. shipment held not an assertion of a right under
No federal question sustaining writ of error the act to regulate commerce, so as to sustain from Supreme Court of the United States to a a writ of error in the Supreme Court of the state court held involved in contention that deUnited States.-Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Smith, fendant was compelled to be a witness against Huggins & Co., 401.
himself, contrary to Const. U. S. Amend. 5.A state court, by deciding that a railroad Barrington v. State of Missouri, 582. employé killed while coupling a car not equip- Refusal of state court to grant change of ped with automatic couplers, as required by venue cannot involve a federal question suffiAct March 2, 1893, c. 196, $ 2, 27 Stat. 531 cient to sustain writ of error from federal Su[U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3174), was, as a mat-preme Court.-Barrington v. State of Missouri, ter of law, guilty of contributory negligence, 582. cannot defeat the appellate jurisdiction of the
Whether an order of the North Carolina Corfederal Supreme Court, where section 8 of that statute was specially invoked.-Schlemmer v. poration Commission, regulating train service,
was unreasonable, held a local and not a federBuffalo, R. & P. Ry. Co., 407.
al question.-Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Defendant's contention that Mining Act Ill. North Carolina Corp. Commission, 585. April 18, 1899 (Laws 1899, p. 300), as to li
*Conformity with state Constitution of the , tution of United States, held to sustain a writ proceedings of state Legislature in enactment of error from the Supreme Court of the Unit- ing a writ of error in the Supreme Court of
a ed States to a Circuit Court.-Wilmington the United States to a state court.-Smith v. Star Min. Co. v. Fulton, 412.
Jennings, 610. *Decision of state court on question of local *No federal question as to impairment of conlaw held not subject to review in Supreme tract obligations which will sustain a writ of Court of United States on writ of error.-Iro- error from Supreme Court of the United States quois Transp. Co. v. De Laney Forge & Iron to a state court held presented by contention Co., 509; Same v. Edwards, Id.
that obligation of contract made by state bonds Claim of right under the federal Constitution was impaired by joint resolution of the state to prove truth of certain published articles held Legislature.-Smith v. Jennings, 610. to constitute a contempt of court held not a *Whether a given corporation comes within basis of a writ of error from the United States statutes of state conferring right of eminent
*Point annotated. See syllabus. 27 S.C.-52
domain presents only a question of state law. Objection that trustee in bankruptcy could
-Stone v. Southern Illinois & Missouri Bridge not attack validity of chattel mortgage given Co., 615.
by bankrupt, because it did not appear that he *The express denial of immunity claimed in represented any but simple creditors, is too late trial and appellate courts, under Rev. St. U. s. when first raised in the federal Supreme Court. $ 5239 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 35i5], by -Frank v. Vollkommer, 596. officers of national bank as to liability for mak- $ 16. -- Circuit courts of appeals. ing false official reports, held to sustain appel
An appeal lies to the Court of Appeals in a late jurisdiction of Supreme Court of the Unit- case where the jurisdiction of the Supreme ed States.-Yates v. Jones Nat. Bank, 638. Court attached for diverse citizenship and on
*Decision of state court in suit to enjoin title constitutional grounds.-Mississippi R. Commisheld not reviewable in Supreme Court of the sion v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 90. United States as involving a federal question.- The Circuit Court of Appeals cannot, in adChapman & Dewey Land Co. v. Bigelow, 679.
vance of final decree, review order adjudging de*Exclusion from evidence in a suit to quiet fendants in contempt; it not being a final ortitle of a letter clearly res inter alios acta der within the appellate jurisdiction of such held to present no federal question. --Chapman court, under Act March 3, 1891, c. 517, $ 6, & Dewey Land Co. v. Bigelow, 679.
26 Stat. 828 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 550].
Doyle v. London Guarantee & Accident Co., 8 15. -- Review by Supreme Court as 313.
affected by time and manner of
Set-off in favor of the United States against The judgment of the Ohio Supreme Court up- demand of commissioner of federal Circuit holding validity of the free banking act of Court for compensation may be allowed by March 21, 1851, $ 30, as amended April 24. Court of Claims, under Rev. St. U. S. § 1059 1879, under which an indictment had been found U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 734), and Act March against the cashier of a bank cannot be review-3, 1887, c. 359, § 1, 24 Stat. 505 (U. S. Comp. ed by the federal Supreme Court where the St. 1901, p. 752), for fees improperly paid him failure of the state court to file an opinion, on prior accounting.-Allen v. United States, leaves it doubtful whether that court may not 324. have held that the words “any banking com- $ 18. Concurrent and conflicting jurispany” embraces all banking institutions in the
diction, and comity. state.-Bachtel v. Wilson, 243, 246; Miller v.
Mississippi Railroad Conmission held not a Same, Id. 246; Davis v. Same, Id. ; Van Horn court within Rev. St. U. S. § 720 [U. S. Comp. V. Same, Id.
St. 1901, p. 581], forbidding federal courts to *Raising a federal question for the first time enjoin proceedings in a state court.-Mississippi in the petition for writ of error to a state R. Commission v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 90. court, and in the accompanying assignment of A proceeding before the Mississippi Railroad errors, held insufficient to give the Supreme Commission held not a proceeding in a state Court of the United States jurisdiction over court within the meaning of Rev. St. U. s. ş such question.-State of Montana v. Rice, 281.720 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 581].-Mississippi
*A right claimed under authority exercised R. Commission v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 90. under the United States held specially claimed
Enjoining, at suit of Cotton Exchange, the within Rev. St. U. S. § 709 [Ú. S. Comp. St. use by defendant of the quotations of sale on 1901, p. 575), defining appellate jurisdiction of such exchange, held not forbidden to a federal the Supreme Court of the United States, where court by Rev. St. U. S. & 720 (U. S. Comp. St. it appears from the opinion of the state court 1901, p. 581], because a state court in a pendthat the federal question was assumed to be in ing suit has restrained telegraph company from issue and that the decision was against the refusing to furnish quotations to defendant.federal claim.-State of Montana v. Rice, 281. Hunt v. New York Cotton Exch., 529.
*Claim of immunity from suit in state court held in time to sustain writ of error from the
COURTS-MARTIAL. federal Supreme Court, though first claimed in petition for rehearing.-McKay v. Kalyton, See “Army and Navy.” 346. *The certificate of the chief justice of the
COVERTURE. highest court of a state cannot help out total failure of record to show that federal question See "Husband and Wife.” was raised.-Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Smith, Huggins & Co., 401. *Decision of state Supreme Court that for
CREDITORS. eign mutual insurance company not authorized to do business in the state could not sue to col- See "Bankruptcy." lect assessments on a policy issued in another state on request of broker in the state cannot be reviewed in Supreme Court of United States
CRIMINAL LAW. as a federal question.-Swing v. Weston Lumber Co., 497.
Appellate jurisdiction of supreme court in crim
inal prosecution, see "Courts," $ 14. *The suggestion of a federal question first Conformity of practice in criminal prosecution made in petition for rehearing in highest state in federal court with that of state court, see court held too late to sustain writ of error to “Courts," $ 7. Supreme Court from Supreme Court of United Criminal jurisdiction of federal courts, see States.-Barrington v. State of Missouri, 582. "Courts," $ 4.
*Point annotated. See syllabus.
Denial of due process of law in criminal prose-ing an isolated fact.-Perovich v. United States,
cution, see “Constitutional Law," $8 7-10. 456. Extradition of persons accused, see "Extradition."
§ 8. Appeal and error, and certiorari. Relief of accused by habeas corpus, see "Habeas
Refusal to appoint interpreter for defendant Corpus.”
in a criminal case when testifying, held not Trial by court martial, see "Army and Navy.” prejudicially erroneous.-Perovich v. United
A judgment convicting a chancery receiver of See "Contempt"; "Homicide."
embezzling the money in his official capacity Against liquor laws, see "Intoxicating Liq-held not reviewable on writ of error to the uors," $ 1.
Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia $ 1. Nature and elements of crime and under Code D. C. $8 233, 841.-Fields v. Unitdefenses in general.
ed States, 543. Protection of national flag held not exclusive- Certiorarı to review judgment of Court of ly intrusted to federal government, so as to Appeals of District of Columbia in a criminal prevent state of Nebraska making it a mis- case will not be granted by federal Supreme demeanor by Act April 8, 1903, p. 644, c. 139, Court where it does not involve a question of to use representations thereof for advertising general importance.-Fields v. United States, purposes.-Halter v. State of Nebraska, 419. 543.
*Contractor for public work of the United States intentionally permitting laborers to work
CUSTOMS DUTIES. more than eight hours a day, under the mistaken assumption that extraordinary emergency Power of state to lay duties as affecting in, exists, intentionally violates Eight-Hoạr Act terstate commerce, see “Commerce," § 1. Aug. 1, 1892, c. 353, 27 Stat. 340°[U. S. Comp. Tariff laws denying due process of law, see St. 1901, p. 2521).- Ellis v. United States, 600; "Constitutional Law," $ 10. Eastern Dredging Co. v. Same, Id. ; Bay State Dredging Co. v. Same, Id.
§ 1. Validity, construction, and opera
tion of customs laws in general. $ 2. Jurisdiction.
The Isle of Pines held a foreign country withLand now embraced within C. county, Okla- in the meaning of Dingley Tariff Act July 24, homa, had become part of that territory August 1897, c. 11, 30 Stat. 151 [U. S. Comp. St. 4, 1901, so as to make murder then committed 1901, p. 1626].-Pearcy v. Stranahan, 545. therein an offense against the territory rather
Congress could, by Act June 30, 1906, c. 3912, than federal statutes.-In re Moran, 25.
34 Stat. 636, ratify illegal collection of duties § 3. Venue.
on imports to Philippine Islands under PresiTrial in C. county, Oklahoma, of an offense dent's order of July 12, 1898, between the dates committed within territory which at the time of ratification of treaty of peace with Spain of trial had been organized as such county sat- and passage of Act July 1, 1902, c. 1369, 32 isfies the requirements of Organic Act May 2, Stat. 691.-United States v. Heinszen, 742. 1890, c. 182, § 10.-In re Moran, 25.
8 2. Goods subject to duty, rate, and $ 4. Former jeopardy.
amount. One acquitted by a military court of compe
Figured cotton cloth valued at over 11, 12, tent jurisdiction of homicide, as defined by Pen. and 1242 cents per square yard is liable, in ad Code P. I. art. 401, cannot be tried a second dition to the specific duty imposed by Act July time in a civil court of those islands for the 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule I, 30° Stat. 175, same offense.--Grafton v. United States, 749.
178 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 1656–1659, par.
313, to the ad valorem tax imposed by paraAcquittal of homicide, as defined by Pen. Code graphs 306, 307, upon similar plain cotton P. I. art. 404, held a bar to a subsequent con- cloth above those values.-United States v. viction under same facts under information George Riggs & Co., 39. charging assassination, as defined by article 403.-Grafton v. United States, 749.
Metal beads temporarily strung on strings
to facilitate transportation are not dutiable un$ 5. Preliminary complaint, affidavit, der Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule N,
warrant, examination, commit- par. 408, 30 Stat. 189 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, ment, and summary trial.
p. 1673], at 35 per cent. ad valorem as loose *Evidence that no offense triable in the fed- | beads, but subject to 45 percent. ad_valorem eral District Court to which accused is sought duty, under paragraph 193.-Henry E. Frankento be removed under Rev. St. U. S. $ 1014 berg Co. v. United States, 628. (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 716], has been committed, cannot be excluded in removal proceed- dutiable under Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c.
A growth on skins of Mocha sheep held not ings.-Tinsley v. Treat, 430; Kessler v. Same, 11, § 1, Schedule K, par. 360, 30 Stat. 183 [U. 434; Morgan v. Same, Id. ; Carpenter v. Same, s.'com'p. St. 1901, p. 1666], as wool on the skin, Id.; Whittle v. Same, Id.; Wilcox v. Same, but entitled to free entry under paragraph Id.; Braden v. Same, Id.; Royster v. Same, 664.-Goat & Sheepskin Import Co. v. United Id. ; Smith v. Same, Id.; Burroughs v. Same, States, 634. Id., McDowell v. Same, id. $ 6. Evidence.
§ 3. Entry and appraisal of goods, *The deputy marshal may testify as to con
bonds, and warehouses. versations with accused not induced by duress, warehouse must be assessed on the weight at
Duty on imports withdrawn from bonded intimidation or other improper influence.- the time of the original entry, as prescribed Perovich v. United States, 456.
by proviso to Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, $ 33, § 7. Trial.
30 Stat. 213 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1701], *Trial court held not required to give re- notwithstanding addition by Act Dec. 15, 1902, quested instruction in criminal case emphasiz- c. 1, 32 Stat. 753 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1905,
*Point annotated. See syllabus.