In re Costs on Violation of Alaska Fishery Laws
District Court, D. Alaska
The defendants in each of the above-entitled causes pleaded guilty to the offense of illegal fishing, for which they were indicted. Said offense is denounced in section 263, Compiled Taws of Alaska 1913. The sentence in each case was that defendant pay a certain fine therein prescribed and “costs to be taxed.” The government duly filed a cost bill and defendant duly made objections thereto. The clerk sustained the government’s cost bill, and defendant appealed to this court.
1Opinion of the Court
JENNINGS, District Judge.
Among the questions presented are two which are common to all the cases, to wit:
Defendant contends that, as the punishment prescribed by law for the offense is “a fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment at hard labor for a term of not more than 90 days, or by both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court,” the payment of costs as a part of the punishment is not authorized, and therefore cannot be lawfully included in the judgment. This question is raised in all the cases by a motion to reform the judgment.
The government relies upon section 974, R.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- United States v. SanbornSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- United States v. BriebachDistrict Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1917
- United States v. SchwartzDistrict Court, N.D. Iowa · 1918
- United States v. SmithDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 1917
3Cited by1 opinion
- State v. Valley Villa Nursing Center, Inc.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 1981