UHITSD BTATES V. EINDBBD. 43 �that there was in this case a Bubstantial compliance with the rule of practice, and that the error of date is immaterial and cannot have misled the defendant. In fact, there is no other act of eongress containing a title 60, c. 3. except that approved June 20, 1874, and that act is suffioiently and properly re- ferred to as an "Act to revise the statutes," etc. Motion denied. ���United States ». Kindebd. �{Circuit Court, E. D. Virginia. December 10, 1880.) �1. Justice of the Pbacb — Act of Consbess — Indictmbnt — Federai. Court.— The wilful and corrupt violation of an act of eongress by a justice of the peace of a state, in the exercise of his office, will ren- der him liable to indictment in federal court. — [Ed. �Motion to Quash Indictment. �L. L. Lewis, U. S. Att'y, appeared for the prosecution. �John Lyon, for the defence, relied in support of his plea, demurrer, and motion on Broom's Legal Maxims, 66-7; Missouri v. Lewis, 91 U. S. 31 ; Ex parte Virginia, 90 U. S. 344; Bradwelly. State, 16 Wall. 139; Slaughter-house Cases, Id. 77; Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 76; Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How. 107; Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 516; 18 St. at Large 356; and Queen v. Badger, 45 Eng. C. L. E. 468. �Htjghes, D. J. This indictment charges the defendant with unla-wfully and corruptly endeavoring to influence, ob- struat, and impede the due administration of justice in the district court of the United States for the eastern district of Yirginia, in having, upon a warrant sued out by one William Myrick, dealt with J. P. Davis, a witness under recognizance in the United States court, in the manner set forth in the 'indictment; that is to say, the indictment, after setting out the facts connected with the warrant, including whipping and unlawful imprisonment, charges that Kindred did issue said ����
