Voss v. Luke
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia
moved for an attachment against witnesses who reside in Virginia, within one hundred miles of this place, and who have been summoned and failed to attend. The process of attachment is of a criminal nature, and not devised merely to bring a witness into court.
Read the full summary
moved for an attachment against witnesses who reside in Virginia, within one hundred miles of this place, and who have been summoned and failed to attend. The process of attachment is of a criminal nature, and not devised merely to bring a witness into court. Hammond v. Stewart, 1 Strange, 510; Wyatt v. Winkworth, 2 Strange, 810; Smalt v. Whit-mill, Id. 1054; Chapman v. Pointon, Id. 1150. The courts of the United States are of limited jurisdiction in criminal as well as in civil actions. The power to issue a summons does not imply a power to issue an attachment, which is a mere criminal…
1Opinion of the Court
CRANCH, Chief Judge.
The questions, arising in this case, are: (1) Can the court issue an attachment of contempt, in any case, against a witness in a civil cause, for not attending according to summons'!1 (2) If so, upon what evidence of contempt will the court issue it? (3) Can the court issue an attachment against a witness in a civil cause, who resides out of the district, but within one hundred miles of the place of trial? (4) If so, to what officer shall it be directed?
1st. There seems to be no reason to doubt the power of the court to grant an attachment of contempt against a witness for…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Fresh v. GilsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1842
- United States v. AnonymousUnited States Circuit Court · 1884
- In re Attachment of SpencerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1883