The Federal Reporter. Volume 4: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit and District Courts of the United States. October-December, 1880. Page: 19
xiv, 928 p. ; 23 cm.View a full description of this legislative document.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
BTEIGER 9. BONN.
sent by the said Eckoff, nor by any one in his behalf, and it
was, doubtless, forwarded by some one to bring the defendant
within this jurisdiction.
If the plaintiff, or any one acting in his behalf, was instru-
mental in decoying him hither by the use of such a device, it
must be held that the writ should be quashed and the suit
dismissed. But if other persons, not connected with the plain-
tiff, procured his attendance, even by these improper meth-
ods, for any purpose, the plaintiff has the right to ,avail him-
self of the opportunity of serving the writ. The defendant is
found in the district, in the sense in which the term is used
in the eleventh section of the judiciary act, (section 739, Rev.
St.,) and the plaintiff is not chargeable with any deception
or fraud practiced by these over whom he had no control,
and for whose actions he is not responsible. Such I under-
stand to be the substance of the opinion of the court in
the case of The Union Sugar Refinery v. Matheisson, supra.
' The question'involved must be decided by ascertaining upon
which party the burden of proof lies. There is no pretence
that the deputy marshal had any knowledge of the forged
telegram. Do the undisputed facts make such a presump-
tion against the plaintiff or his agent, who accompanied the
officer, that he is called upon to rebut them with proof that
he was not privy to the deception practiced upon the defend-
ant ?
I am of that opinion. The presumption of the plaintiff's
participation in the deception is stronger here than in the case
of Hevener v. Heist, 30 Leg. Int. 46, and yet in that case the
court set aside the writ. The defendant had beenbrought to
Philadelphia from Bucks county, Pensylvania, by a forged
telegram, and on his arival he was served with the writ by the
deputy sheriff. Judge Sharswood thought the burden of
proof was upon the plaintiff to explain how the officer knew
that the defendant was coming. There was no evidence
as to who sent the telegram, and yet the learned judge
held that the failure of the plaintiff to show that he did not
direct the officer in the service was fatal to the legality of the
proceedings. "I am clearly of the opinion," he says, "that it
was incumbent on the plaintiff to produce the sherifI'sdep-
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
Boyle, Peyton. The Federal Reporter. Volume 4: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit and District Courts of the United States. October-December, 1880., legislative document, 1881; Saint Paul, Minnesota. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc36333/m1/33/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.