8,283 complaints being made to a commissioner of a circuit court
charging that number of persons with violating the provisions of
Rev.Stat. § 5512 by fraudulently obtaining registration in
Louisiana, that number of warrants were issued and delivered to
tale marshal. 6,903 of the persons against whom the warrants issued
were not found. 1,380 were arrested, 77 of whom were held for
trial, and the remaining 1,303 on examination were discharged. The
commissioner presented his account to the court, claiming in each
of the 8,283 cases the fee of $10 allowed by Rev.Stat. § 1986
for "his services in each case, inclusive of all services incident
to the arrest and examination." The Circuit Court approved and
allowed the claim only as to the 77 cases, and that was paid. The
commissioner
Page 151 U. S. 180
brought suit in the Court of Claims to recover a fee of $10 in
each of the other 8,206 cases. The government demurred to the
petition, and it was dismissed. The claimant appealed from this
judgment.
Held:
(1) That the refusal of the Circuit Court to approve the account
of the commissioner, though no bar to the recovery, might be a
matter for consideration in respect to the good faith of the
transaction.
(2) That the payment of the claim for the 77 cases conceded the
sufficiency of the complaint on which, in each case, the proceeding
was founded.
(3) That when a defendant was arrested and an examination held,
there was a criminal case entitling the commissioner to a fee,
although the examination resulted in a discharge.
(4) That when no arrest was made and no examination took place,
no case had arisen within the meaning of Rev.Stat. § 1986,
entitling the commissioner to a fee.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims. The
action was commenced by John P. Southworth on December 16, 1882, to
recover the sum of $82,830 for services as a circuit court
commissioner for the District of Louisiana. The petition alleged
that during the year 1876, 8,283 complaints were made to him as
such commissioner, charging certain persons named therein with the
violation of section 5512, Rev.Stat.; that on such complaints the
petitioner, as commissioner, duly issued warrants against the
persons named, and delivered them to the marshal of the district;
that, of the persons named in these complaints and warrants, 6,903
were not found, and 1,380 were arrested; that, of those arrested,
77 were held for trial, while the remaining 1,303 were, on
examination, discharged.
The complaints are stated to have all been in this form:
"United States of America"
"District of Louisiana"
"Parish of Orleans"
"_____, _____, having been duly sworn, each for himself, on oath
says that he is a citizen of the State of Louisiana, residing in
and a qualified elector of said Parish of Orleans, duly registered,
and that his name appears as a registered elector or voter upon the
registration books of said parish for the year 1876, and they
further say, each for himself, that they have
Page 151 U. S. 181
made due and diligent personal inquiry for _____, registered
upon the registration book of the _____ ward of the City of New
Orleans, No. ___, and claiming to reside at No. ___ _____ Street in
said ward and city, and that said _____ does not reside in said
_____ Ward or Parish of Orleans aforesaid; that therefore said
_____, on or about the ___ day of _____, 187_, did fraudulently
obtain registration as aforesaid in said _____ ward and parish as
stated, as an elector in said ward and parish, contrary to the 21st
section of Act No. 155 of the Session of 1874 of the General
Assembly of the State of Louisiana, and contrary to, and in
contravention of, section 5512 of the Revised Statutes of the
United States."
"________ ________."
"________ ________."
"Sworn to and subscribed on the ___ day of _____, 1876."
"Jno. P. Southworth"
"
United States Commissioner of the Circuit"
"
Court in and for the District of Louisiana"
The petition further alleged that the petitioner, as
commissioner, made a docket entry of all the proceedings in each
case, as required by law, including therein the title of the case,
with the name of the defendant, the drawing of the affidavit or
complaint and the date of the same, the issuing of the warrant and
its date, the return of the officer, the arrest and examination of
the person charged in each case where an arrest was made, the
number of oaths administered and affidavits filed, and that he also
kept full and correct files in each case of all the papers therein,
including affidavits, warrants, etc.; that he presented his
account, duly verified by his oath, to the district attorney of
said district of Louisiana, who submitted the same in open court to
the district court, and the court passed upon the same by approving
the account as to the 77 cases in which the persons arrested were
held for trial, the amount of which was, as afterwards admitted,
paid by the government, and disallowing and refusing to certify the
same as to the other cases. It further alleged a presentation of
his claim to the proper accounting
Page 151 U. S. 182
officers of the United States for settlement, and their refusal
to allow the same.
A demurrer to this petition having been sustained, 19 Ct.Cl.
278, the plaintiff amended by adding allegations to the effect that
Act No. 155 of the Session Laws of the General Assembly of
Louisiana for the year 1874 required a registration of voters for
the election in 1876, and showing, in a general way, the facts and
circumstances which justified the commissioner, as claimed, in
finding that there was probable cause to believe that offenses had
been committed, and in issuing the warrants.
A demurrer to this amended petition was thereafter filed and
sustained, and judgment rendered dismissing the petition.
Pending the proceedings in the Court of Claims, the petitioner
died, and the suit was revived in the name of the present
plaintiff, his executrix.
Section 5512, Revised Statutes, is in chapter 7 of the title
"Crimes." By section 1982, the commissioners, with other officers,
are
"authorized and required at the expense of the United States, to
institute prosecutions against all persons violating any of the
provisions of chapter seven of the title 'Crimes,'"
and by section 1986, the commissioner is "entitled to a fee of
ten dollars for his services in each case, inclusive of all
services incident to the arrest and examination."
MR. JUSTICE BREWER, after stating the facts in the foregoing
language, delivered the opinion of the Court.
The magnitude of this claim is startling. If the fact be, as
stated in the report of the comptroller, attached as an exhibit to
the petition, that these complaints were filed, and warrants
issued, during the twelve days from October 26 to November 6, or at
the rate of about seven hundred a day, as only one out of six of
the persons named was ever found and arrested,
Page 151 U. S. 183
it is calculated to arouse a suspicion that these proceedings
were not had in the due and orderly administration of criminal law,
and with a view to the arrest and punishment of offenders, but
rather for the sake of rolling up a pecuniary claim against the
government, or from some other equally dishonest motive. But it
does not follow that the demurrer was properly sustained, or that
the claim can rightfully be denied by reason of the mere suspicion
of wrong. If there had been but a single case before the
commissioner, and the proceedings in that, as stated, be sufficient
to establish a valid claim against the United States, then the
demurrer ought to have been overruled, for the mere multiplication
of the cases, even into the thousands, does not as a matter of law
disclose any illegality. The facts attending the prosecutions
should be fully presented in order that the
bona fides of
the transaction may be determined. We pass, therefore, to consider
the petition as though it alleged but one case before the
commissioner, one complaint filed, one warrant issued, and one
party arrested.
That the refusal of the court to approve the account is no bar
to the action is settled by
United States v. Knox,
128 U. S. 230,
although such refusal may be a matter for consideration in respect
at least to the good faith of the transaction.
United States v.
Jones, 134 U. S. 483.
It is insisted by the government that the complaint does not
state an offense; that in consequence there was no foundation for
the issue of the warrant or for the subsequent proceedings, and
hence that there was in law no case before the petitioner as
commissioner. We quote from the brief this statement of the alleged
defects:
"It is not alleged that the accused did register, nor that he
had no lawful right to register, nor that the registration books
upon which his name appeared were made for an election at which a
representative in Congress might be chosen, nor, indeed, for any
election whatever."
"It is, of course, perfectly clear that the affiants do not
pretend to swear, as to facts, that accused fraudulently obtained
registration contrary to law, but merely to express
Page 151 U. S. 184
a conclusion from the fact of nonresidence at a certain
place."
It may be conceded that the offense is not stated with the
fullness and technical accuracy required in an indictment, but we
do not think that the complaint can be treated as an absolute
nullity. In the 77 cases in which the parties were arrested and
held for trial, it would seem that its sufficiency was conceded,
for the account therefor was allowed and paid. While no estoppel is
created by the act of the government in making such payment, yet it
is significant as showing that no technical accuracy in a complaint
is considered essential. Doubtless the defect in a complaint may be
so great as to suggest a lack of good faith on the part of the
commissioner; but it would be placing an undue burden on such
officers to hold that their right to compensation rested on the
fact that the offense was stated with such precision as to be
beyond the reach of challenge. It is sufficient if the complaint is
full enough to clearly inform the defendant of the offense with
which he is charged. It was well said by the Supreme Court of
Alabama in
Crosby v. Hawthorn, 25 Ala. 223:
"In preliminary proceedings of this nature, which are usually
had before justices of the peace, technical accuracy cannot be
expected and is not required. It is sufficient if, giving to the
language employed its ordinary signification, the court may gather
from it that an offense against the criminal law has been committed
or attempted. If such proceedings were to be subjected to the rigid
rules of criticism, and all the constituent elements of the offense
sought to be investigated were required to be set forth in the
affidavit or warrant with certainty, the administration of the
criminal law would be greatly embarrassed and offenders would often
go unpunished by reason of the hazard which the justice who issues,
the party who procures, and the officer who executes the warrant
for arresting them would incur. We must be content to gather the
meaning of the party from the affidavit, and disregard the want of
technical accuracy of description."
There can be no mistake as to what was intended to be
Page 151 U. S. 185
charged in this complaint. It in effect alleges that the
defendant was registered upon the registration books of a named
ward, and registered as claiming to reside at a given number on a
particular street in that ward; that he did not reside in such
place, or in the Ward or Parish of Orleans, and that therefore he
was fraudulently registered, in violation of a specified section of
the statutes. Fraudulent registration is the crime charged, and
charged with particularity of section, ward, residence claimed, and
section of the statute violated. Whether a party arrested upon a
warrant issued on such complaint could be discharged on habeas
corpus it is unnecessary to determine,
Ex Parte
Watkins, 3 Pet. 193,
28 U. S. 203,
for it cannot be that a commissioner guaranties to the government
the sufficiency of the complaint filed before him, and is entitled
to no compensation if it be found defective. If he has proceeded in
good faith to render services to the government, acting upon a
complaint manifestly intended to charge an offense, and, the
defendant having been arrested upon such complaint, holding an
examination, and rendering a judicial decision thereupon -- in the
language of the statute, "hearing and deciding on criminal charges"
-- he is entitled to compensation. We conclude therefore that this
affidavit is not so defective as to deprive the commissioner of a
right to compensation for services rendered in good faith in the
proceedings founded thereon.
It of course cannot be tolerated, in the absence of express
language, that compensation is to be paid when the defendant is
bound over for trial, and not when he is discharged. That when the
defendant is arrested, and examination held, there is a "criminal
case" is clear.
Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.
S. 547;
United States v. Patterson,
150 U. S. 65. That
unless there be an arrest and examination there is no "case,"
within the meaning of section 1986 is equally clear. The amount
allowed -- $10 -- precludes the idea that the mere filing of a
complaint and issue of a warrant are sufficient. And the language
of the statute is plain. The allowance is "for his services in each
case, inclusive of all services incident to the arrest and
examination."
Page 151 U. S. 186
It follows from these considerations that a cause of action was
stated as to the 1,303 cases in which there was an arrest,
examination, and discharge of the defendant, and that the Court of
Claims erred in sustaining the demurrer to this petition. Judgment
will therefore be
Reversed, and the case remanded, with instructions to
overrule the demurrer, and for further proceedings in conformity to
law.
