Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/129

122 CEDXBAIi fillfOBTEB. �The offence was committed December 4, 1845. The infor- mation before justices and warrant were on December 19, 1845. Brooks was apprehended September 5, 1846, and Gibson Oetober 21, 1846. The indictment was preferred April 6, 1847. The question was reserved for the opinion of the judges whether the prosecution was commenced in time. They ail concurred in holding that the prosecution was commenced within 12 calendar months after the com- mission of the oflfence. To the same effeet see 1 East, P. G. 186; Rex v. Wallace, E. & B. G. 0. 369; and Rex v. Phillips, Russell dt Ryan, 369, (1 British Crown Cases, 369.) �The difficulties and embarrassments which would arise in this court in the future progress of the case, if it should now be removed, have been urged by counsel for the state of Georgia as an argument against the view above taken. Th» Bame argument has been before used in this court against the removal of a criminal prosecution from a state court to this court after indictment found. �It was urged that the statute did net authorize such re- moval on account here of the difficulties and incongruities which would arise in a trial in this court of an offence against the laws of the state. That argument did not prevail, and an indictment for murder, removed from the state courts, wa& tried in this court. Georgia v. O'Grady, 3 Woods, 469. �No insuperable difficulties were encountered in the case, and none, it is fair to presume, will be in this. No reason is perceived why an indictment for an offence against the laws of Georgia may not be found by a grand jury of this court in the case of a prosecution removed from the state court. The difficulties in the way of such an indictment, and the subse- quent trial of it, are, in my judgment, imaginary. But, if they were real, it would be no answer to the petitions for removal. In the case of The State of Tennessee v. Davis, supra, the supreme court says : "Whether there is any mode and manner of procedure in the trial prescribed by the act of congress is totally immaterial to the inquiry whether the case is removable, and this question could hardly have arisen upon a motion to remand the case. The imaginary difficul- ����