Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/211

 IK BE DOia. ���m ���but where that misconduct bore fruit by causing the death of a human being. The first clause of the indictment merely avers, as we have seen, that Thomas Doig, on the niueteenth of April, 1879, in the district of Oregon, and within the juris- diction of the court, was a pilot, etc. It does not even allege that he-vyas then engaged within the district, or mthin the jurisdiction of the court, in the performance of his dutiës as such pilot. It further avers that on the nineteenth pf April, 1879, the Great Eepublic vras "making a voyage from San Francisco to Portland," and that on that day she arrived off the Columbia river, ator nearthe aûtoniatio buoy ; that Doig then and there took charge of her, and that by his misconduct she was wreeked on Sand island, where the loss of life by drowning occurred. �It is not alleged that the steamer was, at any time while Doig had charge of her, within the jurisdiction of the court. It is not averred that she was on the high seas, or that she was within the district. It is not averred that the automatic buoy, where the alleged misconduct commenced, is within the jurisdiction of the court, or within the district of Oregon ; rior is either of these averments made with respect to Sand island, where the deaths by drowning occurred, and where the offence of manslaughter was committed. But this is not ail. It affirma tively appears, from an examination of the statutes which define the northern boundafy of Oregon, an inspection of the officiai oharts of the coast. survey, and -the testimony of an expert who identifies the natural objects called for in the description of the boundary line contained in the statutes and laid down on the chart, that Sand island is not within the district of Oregon, but is within the bounda- ries of Washington territory. The offence is, therefore, not justiciable in the district of Oregon, and the United States' courts of Oregon are without jurisdiction to try the offender. The analogy between this case and In re BueU, decided by Judge Dillon, is thus seen to be perfect. In that case, as in this, the indictment showed on its face that the offence was not committed within the jurisdiction of the court in which the indictment was found. The prisoner must be discharged. ����