EX PARTE WATERMAN. ' 29
rightfully his. So far as both the letter-carrier and the person to whom
the letter was delivered were concerned, the delivery of the letter was in-
nocent and rightful, and therefore all action and authority of the post-
othce department in respect to the letter, terminated with its delivery to
the third person. The inapplicability of this case in its facts to the case
under consideration, is apparent.
A warrant will issue for the removal of the prisoner to the district of ,
Minnesota.
Ea: parte WATERMAN.
(District Uourt, NZ D. New York. November 9, 1887.) I ~
Crmmur. PRACTICE—SENTENCE—PLAOE or- Comvrmmnur-Pownn or Umrmn
- STATES DISTRICT Oourvrs. , .
A woman, duly convicted in the district court of the Eastern district of New
York, was sentenced to be imprisoned in the state prison at Auburn, but the
warden refused to admit her, because he was not permitted by the laws of
the state to receive female prisoners. The court thereupon, during the same
session, but in the absence of the convict, made an order modifying the sen-
tence by substituting the Erie County Penitentiary as the place o connne·
ment. Held, on habeas corpus, that the criminal jurisdiction of the district
courts being purely statuto , and it being apparent from the provisions of
Rev. St. U. S. §§ 5541,5542,r5r548, 5546, tit. 70, c. 9, relating to "prisouers and
their treatment, " that the designation of the place of imprisonment is no
part of the judgment, such an order could be made in absentem. ‘
p On Habeas Corpus.
Tracy U. Becker, for petitioner.
M. D. Wilber, .U. S. Dist. Atty., contra.
Coxs, J. The petitioner, having been convicted in the United States A
district court for the Eastern district of New York, under section 5457 A
of the Revised Statutes, was, on the eleventh of October, 1886, sentenced
to be imprisoned at hard labor in the state prison at Auburn for the
term of three years. On the sixteenth of October, the marshal trans-
ported her to Auburn, but the warden of the prison, not being permit-
ted by the laws of the state to receive females, refused to admit her. On
the same day,—October 16th,-—the court, during the same session, but
in the absence of the defendant, made an order modifying the sentence
by substituting the Erie County Penitentiary as the place of imprison· »
ment.
The simple question is, could the court lawfully make this order in ab-
sentem? It cannot be denied that the authorities are unanimous in hold-
ing that, where the slightest corporal punishment is inflicted, the de-
fendant must be present in court when the sentence is pronounced. San- ‘
ford v. People, 1 Park. Crim. R. 474, 477; Dougherty v. Com., 69 Pa. St.
286; State v. Hurlbat, 1 Root, 90; Son. v. People, 12 Wend. 345; People
V. Winchell, 7 Cow. 525; Rex v.,I·Iarris, 1 Ld. Rayrn. 267; Wlart. Crim.
\