Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/153

 POLLOOS V. STSAM-BOÀT liAUSA. Ml �regulatîng this troublesôme description of people, andin some instances inflicting corporal punishment on such persons.if convicted of malicious or oppressive proceedings. Among other things, compounding infortnations on penal actions— that is, taking any money or promise from the defendant without leave of the court, by way of making a composition with him not to prosecute — subjectôd the offender to a penalty of £10, two hours standing in the pHlory, and to be forever disabled from suing such popular action. On the subject of these infor- mations it is worthy of remark that no prosecution could be brought by any common informer after the expiration of a year from the commission of the offence." These instances are surely sufficient to show that the plaintiff in a popular action, whether prosecuting by information or by original writ, was an informer within the ■well-understoodmeaningof that word. The Word seems elearly to include such a plaintiff, also, as it is used in the act of congress of February 28, 1799, which provides in section 8 "that if any informer on a penal stat- ute, and to whom the penalty or any part thereof, if recov- ered, is directed to accrue, shall discontinue his suit or pros- ecution, or be nônsuited," etc., he shall be liable for certain fees. 1 St. 626. In its origin the word "informer" may have meant only one who sues by way of an information ; but, asis seen by the statute of 18 Elizabeth, this was not the only mode of suing for penal ties, and in time, cërtainly, if not orig- inally, a party so suing in whatever mode was known as an informer. The word also, no doubt, in Some of its applica- tions, includes a person who lôdges information with a gov- ernment officer which leada to a suit brought by the govern- ment itself . It is so used in the customs revenue laws. But Vndà the word includes also the plaintifif in a popular action is very evident from the authorities cited above. Nor does it seem to me that the reference to the share of the informer in this proviso has any important bearing on this question. When the who'.e penalty, as in this case, goes to the informer ils share is the whole. It is not a misuse of the word, even if intended to apply to this class of informors. There is no atatute which has been cited, or which I have discovered, which ����