The Blanche Page. debt, on process issuing out of the Admiralty Court, is abolished in all cases where, by the laws of the State in which the Court is held, imprisonment for debt has been, or shall be hereafter abolished, upon similar or analogous process issuing from a State Court." By § 990 of the Revised Statutes of the United States it is provided as follows: "No person shall be imprisoned for debt in any State, on process issuing from a Court of the United States, where, by the laws of such State, imprisonment for debt has been or shall be abolished. And all modifications, conditions and restrictions upon imprisonment for debt, provided by the laws of any State, shall be applicable to the process issuing from the Courts of the United States to be executed therein; and the same course of proceedings shall be adopted therein as may be adopted in the Courts of such State." The stipulations and bonds in this case are contracts, and contracts to pay money. The decrees are judgments requiring the payment of money due upon contracts. By the statutes of New York, imprisonment. for debt is abolished as a remedy in execution of a judgment requiring the payment of money due on a contract, such as the contracts in this case. (Laws of New York, of 1831, Ch. 300, § 1; Code of Procedure, §§ 12, 548 to 550, 1240, 1487.) The motion is denied, in all its branches. George A. Black, for the motion. Abiathar B. Millard and Jacob Vanatta, opposed. In re Samuel H. Leszynsky, on Habeas Corpus. IN THE MATTER OF SAMUEL H. LESZYNSKY, ON HABEAS CORPUS. Section 3,318 of the Revised Statutes of the United States provides that any person who commits any one of the offences therein specified shall pay a penalty of $100, and shall, on conviction, be find not less than $100, nor more than $5,000, and imprisoned not less than 3 months, nor more than 3 years. The United States brought a civil suit against L. to recover the penalty of $100 imposed by that section for an offence therein specified, and recovered a judgment therefor, which was paid and satisfied of record. Afterwards L. was arrested on a warrant for the same offence, and was committed for trial. On a habeas corpus: Held, that the criminal proceeding by the warrant was not a proceeding to punish him twice for the same offence. The three punishments-the penalty, the fine and the imprisonment-are only one punishment for the same offence, although the penalty is recovered in a civil action, and the fine and imprisonment are inflicted by a criminal prosecution. (Before BLATCHFORD, J., Southern District of New York, February 13th, 1879.) BLATCHFORD, J. Section 3,318 of the Revised Statutes is in these words: "Every rectifier and wholesale liquor dealer shall provide a book, to be prepared and kept in such form as may be prescribed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenne, and shall, on the same day on which he receives any foreign or domestic spirits, and before he draws off any part thereof, or adds water or anything thereto, or in any respect alters the same, enter in such book, and in the proper columns respectively prepared for the purpose, the date when, the name of the person or firm from whom, and the place whence, the spirits were received, by whom distilled, rectified or compounded, and when and by whom inspected, and, if in the original package, the serial number of each package, the number of wine gallons and proof gallons, the kind of spirit, and the number and kind of adhesive stamps thereon. And every such rectifier and wholesale dealer shall, at the time of sending out of his stock or possession any spirits, and before the same are removed from his premises, enter in like man In re Samuel H. Leszynsky, on Habeas Corpus. ner in the said book, the day when, and the name and place of business of the person or firm to whom, such spirits are to be sent, the quantity and kind or quality of such spirits, the number of gallons and fractions of a gallon at proof, and, if in the original packages in which they were received, the name of the distiller and the serial number of the package. Every such book shall be at all times kept in some public or open place on the premises of such rectifier or wholesale dealer for inspection, and any revenue officer may examine it and take an abstract therefrom; and when it has been filled up as aforesaid, it shall be preserved by such rectifier or wholesale liquor dealer for a period not less than two years; and during such time it shall be produced by him to every revenue officer demanding it. And whenever any rectifier or wholesale liquor dealer refuses or neglects to provide such book, or to make entries therein as aforesaid, or cancels, alters, obliterates, or destroys any part of such book, or any entry therein, or makes any false entry therein, or hinders or obstructs any revenue officer from examining such book, or making any entry therein, or taking any abstract therefrom, or whenever such book is not preserved or is not produced. by any rectifier or wholesale liquor dealer as herein before directed, he shall pay a penalty of one hundred dollars, and shall, on conviction, be fined not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five thousand dollars, and imprisoned not less than three months nor more than three years." This section is, in all material respects, a re-enactment of § 45 of the Act of July 20th, 1868, (15 U. S. Stat. at Large, 143.) In the first edition of the Revised Statutes, the words "on conviction," found in said § 45, were omitted from said $3,318, but, by the Act of February 27th, 1877, (19 Id., 248,) said § 3,318 was amended by inserting said words "on conviction," that Act stating that such amendment, with others, was made "for the purpose of correcting errors and supplying omissions" in the Revised Statutes, "so as to make the same truly express" the statutes of the United States in force. on the 1st of December, 1873. Said § 3,318, as above quoted, In re Samuel H. Leszynsky, on Habeas Corpus. is quoted as it is printed in the second edition of the Revised Statutes, except that the word "quality" is printed “quantity," by mistake, in the second edition, the word being "quality" in the first edition and in said § 45. The United States, on the 13th of January, 1879, brought a civil action, in the District Court of the United States for this District, against Samuel H. Leszynsky and Charles A. Troup, the complaint in which set forth, "that, at the time hereinafter mentioned, the defendants were partners in business, under the firm name of Leszynsky & Troup, at No. 26 Beaver street, in the city of New York, and then and there carried on the business of wholesale liquor dealers and rectifiers; that, in and during the year 1878, the defendants, at the city of New York, received certain distilled spirits which they failed and neglected to enter in the book required by law to be kept by them as such wholesale liquor dealers and rectifiers, and, therefore, by virtue of the premises, and by force of the statute of the United States in such case provided, the defendants became liable to pay to these plaintiffs the sum of one hundred dollars, ($100,) which said sum remains due and unpaid; wherefore plaintiffs demand judg ment against the defendants for the sum of one hundred dollars, besides the costs of this action." The defendants appeared by attorney in said action, and put in an answer, which stated, that the defendants, "for answer to the complaint, say nothing in bar or preclusion of the suit of the said plaintiffs." On the 20th of January, 1879, an order was made by said District Court, "that the plaintiffs have judg ment for their claim, together with costs and disbursements of this action, to wit, the sum of one hundred and fifteen dollars," and "that the clerk enter judgment for said amount." On the same day a judgment in said action was entered, "that the plaintiffs have judgment for their claim, together with costs and disbursements of this action, to wit, the sum of one hundred dollars, and that they have execution therefor." On the same day an order was made by said District Court, reciting that a judgment had been entered in said action for In re Samuel H. Leszynsky, on Habeas Corpus. $115, and that the defendants' attorney had paid into the registry of said Court the sum of $115 in satisfaction of said judgment, and ordering that said judgment be satisfied and cancelled of record. Afterwards, on the same day, a United States Commissioner issued a warrant to the marshal, setting forth that complaint on oath had been made to him, "charging that Samuel H. Leszynsky and Charles A. Troup were, at the times hereinafter mentioned, rectifiers and wholesale liquor dealers, doing business at No. 26 Beaver street, New York city, did, on or about the 29th of October and 18th day of November, in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy-eight, at the Southern District of New York, unlawfully neglect to make any entry whatever in the book kept by them, the form whereof had theretofore been prescribed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, of spirits then and there sent out by them of their stock and possession, before the said spirits were removed from their premises, and, further, they did, as such wholesale liquor dealers and rectifiers, on or about the 18th day of November, 1878, in said District, unlawfully neglect to make any entry in their said book, of spirits then and there sent out by them of their stock, before the said spirits were removed from their premises, and the spirits here mentioned are not those stated herein before, and for similar offences on the 30th of October and 15th day of December, 1878," and commanding the marshal to apprehend the said Leszynsky and Troup. Under this warrant Leszynsky was arrested and brought before the Commissioner, and an examination was had, and, on the 23d of January, the Commissioner committed him to the custody of the marshal, for trial, in default of $1,000 bail. He has now been brought before this Court on a writ of habeas corpus issued by it, and the proceedings which took place before the Commissioner are before this Court on a writ of certiorari. At the examination before the Commissioner, the defendant put in evidence the said proceedings in said civil action, and, while admitting that there was probable cause to hold him under said warrant, but for said proceedings, contended, and here con |