NARA: Criminal Case Files 2

Part II  Civil Rights
By Martha Wallace and Cath Trindle

The violation of an individual's civil rights is one of the crimes tried in US Federal Court.  Among the cases heard in San Francisco in the late 1800s are those of John Jackson, tax collector for Trinity County, and Thomas Stapleton (Thomas Breeze) tax collector for El Dorado County.  The indictments were for demanding, exacting, and collecting a Foreign Miners Tax of $4 

Sacramento Transcript, 

Volume 2, Number 132

29 March 1851

In 1850 the first California state legislature passed the first Foreign Miners Tax Law, levying a twenty dollars per month tax on each foreigner engaged in mining. A revolt resulted and it was repealed in 1851. The Foreign Miners Tax Law was reenacted in 1852. By 1853 the Foreign Miner's Tax stated in Section 6, "The amount to be paid for each license shall be at the rate of four dollars per month, and said license shall in no case be transferable."  

Collections of the tax in 1850 amounted to more than $26,000 and between 1850 and 1870 provided more than 1/2 of the tax revenue for the state. Controversy over the tax was immediate. The Daily Alta California article, "Murders & Robberies", claims that the law caused an increase in crime in the gold country.  In fact, the tax was rigidly enforced against Mexicans and Chileans to encourage them to leave the gold region which in some cases prompted revenge.

By the 1870s the law was mainly enforced against the Chinese miners. The case against Sheriff John Jackson was instigated by the complaint of Ah Koo, who also claimed to be a citizen.

Sheriff John Jackson was found guilty. However, as the The Daily Alta California reported in  The Sentence of Sheriff Jackson on 26 Mar 1871 the judge, stating that although he was guilty he was acting under the color of the law,  only fined him $20. He also implied that the case could be immediately appealed to a higher court so the legality of the law could be determined.
 
In the second case, the complainants claimed they should not have pay this tax, as the tax was not collected from white miners (implying white "foreign" miners.) On 15 Dec 1873 the case was ordered nolle prosequi (will no longer prosecute.)

__________________________________________________

Daily Alta California, Volume 28, 

Number 9420, 20 January 1876  

Just a few years later in 1876 another set of civil rights cases was heard.  Both cases were against Thomas Maguire, the proprietor of a San Francisco theater.

Charles Green and George M Taylor and purchased theater tickets bur were not allowed to enter the theater and be seated in the seats they had purchased.  They claimed this was a violation of their civil rights.

The case of Charles Green was heard and a jury determined that Maguire was not guilty.  The judge in this case had excluded testimony that the doorkeeper had acted on orders of Maguire. The jury therefore found that the doorkeeper had acted on his own authority and therefore Maguire was not responsible.

The case of George M Taylor was ordered nolle prosequi on 16 Jul 1877.  The book  Children of Fire: A History of African Americans by Thomas C. Holt discusses how the second case involving George Taylor helped to gut the Civil Rights Act of 1875.

Index to Criminal Case Files 1863-1917

Links

• Criminal Cases Pt 1
• Accessing Records held by NARA
• SMCGS Blog – NARA Databases an Overview
• SMCGS Blog - Federal Court Cases Pt 1  Pt 2
• Blacks Law Dictionary Online  
• More on Foreign Miner's Tax
• California Digital Newspaper Project - Foreign Miner's Tax  (303 articles)
• OAC - Foreign Miner's Tax Document

NARA: Criminal Case Files 1863-1917

Part I  
By Martha Wallace and Cath Trindle

When does a criminal case end up in Federal Court rather than a state court?  The answer is definitely not that it was more serious.  In fact a great number of the cases found in this record set are for such weighty crimes as not paying taxes on the sale of friction matches, not having a liquor license, or cutting trees on federal land for personal gain. The criteria for ending up in Federal Court is that the crime violated a federal law, therefore we find tax cases,  civil rights cases, admiralty cases and the like.

Take for example the selling of those friction matches without a tax stamp.  By the 1870's the friction matches that were manufactured in the United States were most often the type referred to as drunkard's matches, an improvement on parlor matches. Parlor matches combined white phosphorous, paraffin among other ingredients on wooden sticks that were generally left attached at the bottom.  Drunkard's matches were created when the bottom of the match was dipped in a non-flammable substance. An 1877 article in Popular Mechanics, Matches, by John A Garver A.B. describes the manufacture of matches in depth.

A tax on the sale of friction matches had been imposed by the Internal Revenue Act of 1864 (Sec 168) and amended in 1866.  (repealed by the Tarriff Act of 1883). The law required that a stamp be placed on each packet of matches that sold.  The cost was $1 for packages of up to 100 matches, and an additional $1 for each 100 matches or portion thereof.  There were generic stamps that could be used by anyone, and also proprietary stamps that were used by individual companies.  To put this tax into perspective, just those matches exported in 1879 brought in nearly $380,000 in tax revenue.  The article mentioned above also discusses the stamp tax and the effect it had on match manufacturing in the United States.



In November of 1877 James Schyler of Half Moon Bay was charged with possession of twelve (12) packages of matches for which the tax had not been paid. Half a year later the charges were dismissed against not only Schyler but against a number of others charged with the same crime.  But not everyone was so lucky.  William Olden, who had been manufacturing the matches, was sentenced to a fine of $500 or 30 days in the Alameda County Jail.  Those who pled guilty for the most part received a $100 fine or between 1 and 6 months in jail.  Some went to trial and were found not guilty, others found guilty received sentences similar to those who pled guilty.

________________________________

In 1887 there were a number of indictments surrounding fraudulent public land surveys, against those who benefited by the surveys and those who swore to their authenticity. Towards the end of this record set there are a number of murders at sea with varying decisions and punishments.

With over 2000 case files, in 63 boxes and two docket books, this database just might provide some color for your family history.  Watch the SMCGS Blog for more on the Federal Criminal Court records at NARA.

Index to Criminal Case Files 1863-1917

Links

• Accessing Records held by NARA
• SMCGS Blog – NARA Databases an Overview
• SMCGS Blog - Federal Court Cases Pt 1  Pt 2
• Blacks Law Dictionary Online  
• More on Matches
• History of the Match
• Match - Wikipedia
• More on Criminal Court
• United States Courts - Criminal Cases
• Federal Judicial Center 

NARA: Admiralty Case Files 1855-1863

By Martha Wallace and Cath Trindle

The Admiralty Case Files include appeals of decisions from both Northern and Southern California district courts. The original lawsuits involved ships with too many passengers, abandoned contracts, damaged goods, cargo not paid for, workers not paid, mistreatment of passengers, and Panama and Nicaragua crossings.  

Although there are only a few dozen cases, they provide a good read as they provide a glimpse into both the good and the bad of life at sea.

Daily Alta California, Volume 5, Number 342, 11 December 1854 (1)

Daily Alta California, Volume 5, Number 342, 11 December 1854 (1)

Take the case of Hadji Hassan, Shack Badacrooden/Barrooden, Imangloo aka Mungloo, Thadanu, Shack Azum aka Mamed Dusden, Mumbaruck, Mootee aka Motse, Ameerow aka Amceron, Abdul Kurreen, Ishmael Enduph, Kadir, Edoo, Happian aka Aram Samy, Assenar, Cureen, and Omar Cullender aka Molydin vs. the ship Tartar with Edward A Mix, master, as claimant and Charles B Polhemus (2) and Edward Parker as sureties.  

What at first seemed to be a simple libel (3) for back pay turned out to be much more complicated.

Calcutta Document

Hong Kong document 

According to original documents included in the files, the libellants signed on as lascars (4) on the Tartar either in Calcutta about Oct 1855 or in Hong Kong in Mar of 1856. They agreed to serve for two years at various wages of of which 3 months were paid in advance.

In July of 1856 the Tartar docked in San Francisco.  On Jul 10,  Mix filed a suit claiming desertion by the lascars. On Jul 14 a libel was filed by the lascars for back pay and $1000 damages each.  On the 15th Polhemus and Parker filed a $500 bond as sureties in the case.

In the meantime, on July 12 Hadji Hassan was arrested and brought before the Police Court, charged with assault and battery and on being found guilty sent to county jail for 30 days.  Patrick McCormick and J J Joseph were among the police officers that went to fetch him from the Tartar to face the charges.

Desertion

In court documents dated Feb 1857, they stated that when they went on board the Tartar in Jul 1856, they were met by ironed (handcuffed) men begging to be taken ashore. The ships officers stated that the men were ironed because they wouldn't work.  In turn the men said they couldn't work because the food that they were given was insufficient and rotten.  They stated the forecastle made them sick with the smell of the food, and that they would work if they were given proper food.

They showed the police men their supply of stinking fish and rotten rice. They said the men looked shabby, unhealthy and unfit to work. The captain wanted all the men back in irons so that he could handle them.  J J Joseph attested that one of the "mates" (he wasn't sure if it was the 1st or 2nd) agreed with the men that they were not getting good food.

The case was decided and appealed.  It was unclear who won the original case, perhaps it was the ship, or perhaps the lascars were awarded more than they received after the final appeal. (5)    On 16 Mar 1857 the Decree of the District Court was "reversed" and libellants were to be paid back wages. 

Calculation of Wages Due Lascars, Mar 1857

The ship appealed the 16 Mar 1857 decision, claiming that Henry B. Janes was not entitled to be the Proctor for the lascars.  They provided statements from some of the men stating the same.  Part of the testimony was that the men had been paid their wages in New York.  Perhaps the Admiralty Court Judge decided that any payments in New York were intended to "pay off" the men for their statements, or possibly he felt that the treatment they had received entitled them to more, whatever the reason on  5 Sep 1857 the Admiralty Court Jude he decreed Janes did have the right to represent the men, and ordered that they be paid all amounts due.

Index to Admiralty Case Files 1855-1863

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

(1) "Tartar" was the name of more than one ship at the time, this sale is for the correct ship as the tonnage is the same.  Records for a "Tartar" bringing passengers to Australia about this time might be the same ship, the tonnage is close but not exact.  Searching for "Tartar" with master Mix brings up interesting results but no relevant records were found.

(2) Charles B. Polhemus emigrated to California from South America and founded the house of Also & Co. Commission Merchants in San Francisco.  Moving to the area that is now Central Park in San Mateo about 1858, he was one of the owners of the San Francisco to San Jose Railroad (later Southern Pacific). Biography  Photo Albums

(3)  Libel - In admiralty law - (verb) to bring a suit against someone; (noun) a plaintiff's written declaration.

(4) A Lascar was a sailor or militiaman from South Asia, the Arab world, and other territories situated to the east of the Cape of Good Hope, who were employed on European ships from the 16th century until the middle of the 20th century. (Wikipedia)

(5) This answer might be found in other district court case files. 

Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Accessing Records held by NARA

SMCGS Blog – NARA Databases an Overview

Blacks Law Dictionary Online

Admiralty and Maritime Law Guide

Admiralty Law - Wikipedia - US

Admiralty Jurisdiction – Pacific Maritime Magazine


Index to Admiralty Case Files 1855-1863

NARA: Equity Case Files 1855-1863 continued

by Martha Wallace and Cath Trindle

Continuing on with the patent infringement cases in this record set, we find....

Clark Jacobs of Brooklyn, NY invented an improvement in rice hullers and received US Patent #9136 on 20 Jul 1852. Jacobs assigned the rights to John Vanderbilt, Jr. in 1854 and Vanderbilit in turn assigned the California rights to Abram Waite and William Ward Battles in 1856. They assigned a moiety to Henry Baker.

Waite, Battles and Baker brought suit against George A Dunn and Michael Garvey for using a machine without a license to do so in California.  Dunn and Garvey answered that they had bought the machine with the understanding that it was to be used in California, that in fact it was not a new invention so shouldn't have a patent and that they were not using the leather disc which was integral to the new patent.  The defendants' answer goes on explaining the difference between hulling and polishing rice. They did not prevail. On 1 Dec 1858 judgement was entered for the complainants.  The file includes original drawings.

Isaac Babbitt invented an improvement in making boxes for axles and gudgeons and US Patent 1252 in 1839.  It was amended in 1840 and extended a number of times. The last extension in 1853 put it under patent until 1860.  Edward T Steen and George V Swan paid $3000 for the rights in California and Oregon.  Paperwork shows A B Ely as a local assignee of the patent rights.

On 18 Oct 1856 they filed suit against E B Goddard, et al for making the boxes without a license. The defendant's answer stated that the design of the boxes they were making, if it was the same, was in wide use throughout the area and therefore the patent should not apply.

The case was dismissed due to lack of prosecution on 31 Jan 1860. The complainant was to pay $44.20 in costs.

It seems the patent office could take a while to issue a patent.  In the case of the Excelsior Crusher suit was brought by William Banham on 30 Aug 1859 against John Nye, JB Johnson, Ira P Rankin, and J Hanscom for making machines based on a design by William Banham for a new way to crush, pulverise and amalgamate gold from quartz.  Banham had filed a caveat with the patent office on 13 Jul 1857.  He did not receive US Patent 26555 until 27 Dec 1859.  Disposition of the case was not included in available documents.

Samuel F. Morse was first issued a patent for the telegraph in 1840.  In 1846 it was reissued as US Patent RE 79 and was good for 14 years through 1860.  In 1838 Morse sold 1/4 of his interest to Francis O J Smith, who in turn sold half (1/8 of the total) to Alfred Vail.  In 1859 the three men began a series of suits against California companies for infringing on their patent rights and refusing to pay a license fee or desist from using the lines.

Incomplete clipping found in file.
The Los Angles Herald dates
from 1880. It seems likely this is from the
New York Herald, however there were 928
Heralds in the 1859-60 time frame so....

Among the companies sues were the Alta California Telegraph Company which had laid line from San Francisco to Sacramento and the Northern California Telegraph Company whose lines ran from Sacramento through various cities (including Marysville) and villages to as far away as Yreka.

A complication occurred when Alfred Vail passed away and the suits were dismissed without prejudice.  In 1860 suits against the two companies were refiled this time with the interest of Vail having been distributed to George T Cobb and Theodore Little. An additional suit was filed against the Placerville and St Joseph Overland Telegraph Co. whose lines ran from Placerville to Carson City.

All three cases ended in injunctions being issued to cease and desist. 

INDEX TO EQUITY CASE FILES 1855-1863

• Equity Case Files 1855-1863 Part I
• Accessing Records held by NARA
• SMCGS Blog - Federal Court Records Pt. 1  
• SMCGS Blog – Federal Court Records Pt. 2
• SMCGS Blog – NARA Databases an Overview
• Blacks Law Dictionary Online
• United States Patent and Trademark Office
• Google Patents
• Directory of American Tool and Machine Patents
• The History of the Telegraph in California

NARA: Equity Files 1855-1863

By Martha Wallace and Cath Trindle

Cases in this record set include land claims and sales, mining claims, mortgages, felling trees, ferries and more, but we decided to focus on patents. The variety of patent infringement cases provided us with enough interesting material for a two part blog.....


On 9 Jul 1855 the case of Lewis Teese and Lewis Teese, Jr. vs. J. V. Hunt was entered in docket book 1, case #3.  The Teese's had invented an improved fork for use by gold diggers when removing rocks from sluice boxes.  They were granted US Patent #12453 on 27 Feb 1855 for a fork with 8 triangular shaped tines.  They claimed that Hunt was infringing on their patent by manufacturing a fork of the same type.

Hunt denied that the Teeses had invented the fork.  He claimed that miners had been using manure forks all along and had settled on 8 tine models usually with diamond tines long before this patent was issued.

The cause was discontinued on 2 Jun 1857... the reason was not noted in the judgement book.

Henry Jones of Bristol, Great Britain, invented an improvement in the preparation of flour.  His self-rising flour used alkalines, acids, sugar and salt rather than yeast for bread making.  He patented the process in Great Britain in 1845.  He assigned the rights to his process for use in United States to John Fowler of New York who patented it on 1 May 1849 (Patent #6418) in Jones' name in the United States. In a series of cases Fowler and then his assignee for the West Coast, Emery T Pease, sued businesses that they claimed were making flour using the patented process.

The two cases in the series were filed by John Fowler through representative Emery Pease against Austin Walrath, RB French and AA Newfelder. (17 Jan 1856 Docket Book #1 Case #9) and against Edward Figg (6 Feb 1856 Docket Book #1 case #10).  Figg in his answer to the suit claimed that there should be no patent as the process was in use long before the patent was filed. In both cases an injunction was issued to cease and desist from manufacturing the self-rising flour until the suit was resolved.


Both of the above suits were cancelled on 12 Apr 1856 by Emory Pease.  It seems that on 1 Dec 1855 Fowler had actually transferred the west coast rights to Pease, but the transfer was not recorded until 26 Mar 1856.

Pease, however, continued the suits in his own name. On 31 May 1856 he filed against W L Bromley.  An order of discontinuance was issued on 1 Dec 1856.

There are also two cases against manufacturers in Marysville. J Riley Jennings was sued on 18 Apr 1857 and it was noted that defendant yielded, compromised and settled. A suit against Francis Cunningham was filed on 5 Oct 1857.  Cunningham denied that he was manufacturing flour and the suit was discontinued on 24 May 1858 without prejudice.

Note: Both the Figg and Jennings suits can also be found in the Private Common Law Case Files.  The index there shows that Jenning paid $5000 in damages.

US Patent RE71

In 1828, William Woodworth invented a machine for planing, tonguing, grooving, and cutting into mouldings or plank boards and reducing them to equal width and thickness and facing and dressing brick and cutting moulding on metallic mineral or other substances, and received a patent for the machine.

After he died, his administrator assigned the patent (extended) to James G Wilson through 1849. In Nov 1849 Wilson sold the license to Thomas J Wells for $12,000 for another seven years (to 1856) to be used only in Oregon Territory and some parts of California. Falconer paid $7200 and Purdy paid $2400 to Wells for shares. The defendants were operating in Puget Sound, Washington Territory, which was part of Oregon Territory when the license was issued. 

One  assignee of the patent, James G Wilson made over $2M on royalties.  He tried to get another extension through 1870. A public ruckus ensured and the request failed. This was one of the reasons that amendments to the US patent law were passed in 1861 creating a patent term of 17 years with NO extensions.

On 24 Jul 1856 Wells, Falconer and Purdy filed a suit against Andrew J Pope, William C. Talbot, Josiah Killer and Charles Foster who were operating in Puget Sound, Washington Territory (part of Oregon Territory when the license was issued.) and apparently using a planing machine without a license.

The file does not give a disposition of the cause.  Perhaps it went away when the patent expired at the end of 1856.

• INDEX TO EQUITY CASE FILES 1855-1863
• Equity Case Files 1855-1863 continued
• Accessing Records held by NARA
• SMCGS Blog - Federal Court Records Pt. 1 
• SMCGS Blog – Federal Court Records Pt. 2
• SMCGS Blog – NARA Databases an Overview
• Blacks Law Dictionary Online
• Google Patents