Imágenes de páginas

lates to civil jurisdiction, and qui tam actions in relation to the revenue, &c.

Sect. 11, after defining the civil jurisdiction of the circuit courts, says, “ And shall have exclusive cognizance of all crimes and offences cognizable under the authority of the United States, except where this act otherwise provides, or the laws of the United States shall otherwise direct, and concurrent jurisdiction with the district courts, of the crimes and offences cognizable therein.”

The forms of oaths and affirmations to be administered to complaining witnesses, should be the same as in the case of fugitives froin justice. Ante 153.

Form of warrant. United States of Americas 3 ss.

? District of Illinois,

United States of America to any constable of the county of Ogle:

Whereas, A. B. hath this day made complaint, on oath, [or affirmation,] before Salmon C. Cotton, Esquire, one of the justices of the peace in and for said county, that on the day of in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and


in the said county of Ogle, and state of Illinois, C. D. did (here set out the offence):

You are, therefore, commanded forth with to take the said C. D. and bring him before the said justice of the peace, or, in case of his absence, before some other justice of the peace in the said county of Ogle, to be dealt with according to law. Hereof fail not at your peril. Witness, Salmon C. Cotton, Esquire, at Grand de Tour, in said Ogle county, the day of 18

Salmon C. Cotton.


[ocr errors]

Form of a recognizance of a prisoner.
United States of America,
District of Illinois,

Be it remembered that, on the day of in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and

C. D. of the county of Ogle, and E. F. and G. H. of

in the said county of Ogle, personally come before me, Salmon C. Cotton, Esquire, one of the justices of the peace in and for the said county of Ogle, and severally and separately acknowledge themselves to owe to the United States of America, that is to say, the said C. D. the sum of four hundred dollars, and the said E. F. and G. H. each the sum of two hundred dollars, separately to be made and levied of their respective goods and chattels, lands and tenements, to the use of the said United States of America, if default shall be made in the condition following:

The condition of this recognizance is such, that is the said



C. D. shall personally appear on the first day of the next term of the circuit court of the United States of America, in the district of Illinois, (or of the district court of the United States of America, to be held at Springfield, in the district of Illinois,') to answer to an indictment to be preferred against him for (here state the offence,) and to do and receive what shall by the said court be then and there enjoined upon him, and shall not depart the court without leave, then this recognizance to be void, or else to remain in full force. Taken, subscribed, and acknowledged

C. D. the day and year first above written, be

E. F. fore Salmon C. Cotton.

G. H.

For forms of mittimus, recognizance of witnesses to give evidence, &c., see chapter VIII. The forms in that chapter may, with slight alterations, be made applicable to the proceedings under this law of the United States.



By the 2d section of the 4th article of the constitution of the United States it is provided, that “No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

By the 6th article, the constitution, and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, are declared to be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution and laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

In pursuance of the authority thus vested, congress passed a law, February 12, 1793, which provides, by

“Sec. 3. That when a person, held to labor in any of the United States, or in either of the territories on the northwest or south of the river Ohio, under the laws thereof, shall escape into any other of the said states or territory, the person to whom such labor or service may be due, his agent, or attorney, is hereby empowered to seize or arrest such fugitive from labor, and to take him or her before any judge of the circuit or district courts of the United States, residing or being within the state, or before any magistrate of a county, city, or town corporate, wherein such seizure or arrest shall be made; and, upon proof to the satisfaction of such judge, or magistrate, either by oral testimony, or affidavit, taken before and certified by a magistrate, of any such state or territory that the person so seized or arrested, doth, under the laws of the state or territory from which he or she fled, owe service or labor to the person claiming him or her, it shall be the duty of such judge or magistrate, to give a certificate thereof to such claimant, his agent or attorney, which shall be sufficient warrant for removing the said fugitive from labor, to the state or territory from which he or she fled.

“Sec. 4. That any person who shall knowingly and willingly obstruct or hinder such claimant, his agent, or attorney, in so seizing or arresting such fugitive from labor, or shall rescue such fugitive from such claimant, his agent, or attorney, when so arrested, pursuant to the authority herein given or declared, or shall harbor or conceal such person, after notice that he or she was a fugitive from labor, as aforesaid, shall, for either of the said offences, forfeit and pay the sum of five hundred dollars, which penalty may be recovered by, and for the benefit of such claimant, by action of debt, in any court proper to try the same; saving, moreover, to the person claiming such labor or service, his right of action for, or on account of the said injuries, or either of them.”

Form of an application to a justice of the peace for a certificate to

remove a fugitive from labor to the state from which he fled.


) of

Uniteis tfiat esr olimerica,
District of Illinois,

To Charles H. Gilman, Esquire, one of the justices of the peace within and for the county of La Salle, and state of Illinois :

A. B. (or C.D., agent or attorney of A. B., of informs and gives the said justice to understand, that one E. F. is a person held to labor in the state of Missouri, under the laws thereof; that the said E. F. has escaped from the said state of Missouri, into the said state of Illinois ; and that the said A. B. is the person to whom the labor and service of the said E. F. is due; and that he has seized and arrested the said E. F., being such fugitive from the labor and service of him, the said A. B., as aforesaid; and that he now hath the said E. F. here before the said justice, to be proceeded with according to the statute of the United States, in such case made and provided. The said A. B., therefore, prays that, upon legal proof to the satisfaction of said justice that the said E. F. doth, under the laws of the said state of Missouri, from which he fled, owe service and labor to the said A. B., (and if by agent or attorney, add “ that the said C. D. is the agent (or attorney) of said A. B.") said justice will give him a certificate thereof, to authorize and empower him to remove the said E. F. to the state from which he fled, as before stated. Dated at Troy Grove, in the said county and state of Illinois, this

day of


Upon legal proof of the statement in the above application,

as required in the act of congress, it will be the duty of the justice to grant the certificate prayed for.

Form of the certificate.

United Sitat es oflamiserica,


day of

District of Illinois, ss. To all people to whom this certificate shall come: Know

that the

in the

of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty

A. B., (or C. D. agent (or attorney) of A. B., of


informed and gave me, the undersigned, a justice of the peace of said county, to understand that (here set out the application at large.)

Whereupon, upon due enquiry, and legal proof being made to me, the said justice, and to my satisfaction, that the facts stated by the said

in his said application, are true, and the premises by me, the said justice, being fully understood, I do hereby, in pursuance of the law of the United States, entitled " An act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters,give to the said A. B. a certificate thereof, to wit, that the said E. F.,

the person named in the said application, doth, under the laws of the said state of Missouri, owe labor and service to the said A. B., and that he hath escaped from the said state of Missouri into the said state of Illinois, (that the said

is the agent, or attorney, of the said A. B.,) and that the said A. B. is authorized, and hath sufficient warrant, by virtue of the statute aforesaid, to remove the said E. F. from the said state of Illinois to the said state of Missouri, from which he fled. Given under my hand and seal at

in the county of and state of Illinois, this

day of

in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty

Charles H. Gilman, justice of the peace

for the county of and state of Minois.



By “ An act lo regulate the apprehension of offenders, and for other purposes," sec. 11, it is provided that “ It shall be lawful for any judge or justice of the peace, upon complaint made before him upon oath or affirmation that a larceny had been committed, and that the person affirming or swearing does verily believe that the stolen goods or other property, are or is concealed in any dwelling-house, out-house, garden, yard or other place or places, to issue a warrant under his hand commanding every such dwelling-house or place to be searched in the day time, and if any of the goods described in any such warrant be found therein, then that the said goods be seized and brought before the judge or justice issuing said warrant.” Gale's Stat., 240.

The search warrant is not to be granted without oath made before the justice, that the party complaining has probable cause to suspect his property has been stolen and is concealed in such a place, and showing his reasons for such suspicion. 1 Chil. Crim. Law, 65. The justice ought not to issue a search warrant upon light suspicion : the facts and circumstances proved should be such as would convince any impartial and disinterested person that the goods have been stolen and are concealed in the place suspected. Lord Hale says, it is convenient that such warrant do require the search to be made in the day time, and though I will not affirm (says he) that they are unlawful without such restriction, yet they are very inconvenient without it, for many times, under pretence of searches made in the night, robberies and burglaries have been committed, and, at best, it creates great disturbances. 2 Hale, 150. Yet it is said that in England, in case not of probable suspicion only, but of positive proof, it is right to execute the warrant in the night time. 1 Chit. Crim. Law, 65. But a search warrant issued under our statute requires the officer to make the search in the day time.

A general warrant to search all separate places is not good, for these warrants are judicial acts, and must be granted upon examination of the facts. 4 Burn's Justice, 130. Such a general warrant is not justifiable, for it makes the party to be in effect the judge, and a search made by pretence of such a warrant gives no more power to the officer or party than what they may do by law without them. 2 Hale, 150.

By the constitution of this state, Art. VIII., Sec. 7, it is declared “ That the people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures; and that general warrants whereby an officer may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of the fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named wliose offences are not particularly described and supported by evidence are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be granted.”

It appears that it is not essential to the validity of a warrant that it should state in whom the property of the goods was at the time they were stolen; for a person may even be indicted

« AnteriorContinuar »