,5?2 INDEX. personal p?senoe of the offender. &rmo? Pacl? Co. v. U?d 8ta?, ?6. ?. �?imOug b'?l?; ? o[. ?rtation of merchandise by a carrier for leto than the published rate is, under the Eiklns Act, a single'continuing offense, continuously mirted in each district through which the transportation is oondueted at the prohibited rate, and is not a series of sepa?to oftensos, and the provi- gun in the law m,l?g such un o?ense triable in any of those districts, confers jurisdiction on the court therein, and dom not. violate ? 2 of Art. HI of, or the Sixth Amendmeut to, the Federal Constitution, pro- vid?ns that the accused char be tried ?n the State and district where Due process of law does not assure to taxpayers that the court will sustain the interpretation ?ive? to a sw, tute by executive of?cers or relief from the consequen?l of mJsintorpretation by either such officers or the court; one acting under a statute must take his chenese that such actinn will be in accord with the final decision a? to its proper interpretation; this is a hs?mt under every law from which there is no security. Thom? �on v. K?ntudnd, 340. ?. Du? Froc? o! law; del?vat-? o! ?'o?; r?l,?ria9 ?mreao?,.?man ? pa?d by h/m, and t/? sp/r? withdra?vn. The fa?t theta warehouseman paid taxes without interest on spirits in bond under a mistaken interpretation of the statute by the state officers and subsequently permitt?i the spirits to he withdrawn does not estop t? State to recover from the warehousemun in!eras! due on such taxes under the statute, aud a judgment therefor does not deprive the ware- houseman of his property without due proco? of law within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, sad so ? ?s to the tax statutes of lf?m*noky. lb. 6. Du? ?o? o! law; ? ri?htz.--Con?uetion o! compact b?w?n New York and N?'w J?'sz?j o! 1833. Under the agreement of 1833 between the States of New York and New Jersey, 4 State. 708, while exclusive jurisdiction is given to New York over the waters of the Hudson River west of the boundary line fixed by ? agraamen!, the land under such waters rormtined subject to the soversignty of New Jersey and the jurisdiction given to New York over the watsrs does not exclude the sovereign power of New Jersey to tax eneh land, -- nor does an exercise of that power deprive the owner of the land of his property without due process of law. C'entra/R. R. Cs. v. Jetsty C/?J, 473. 7. Dv? ? o! law--?'o? ?; ?l?.ea? o! no!lea by tmbliau?. An owner of pv0perty must be held to knowisdg? that failurs to troy duly ? t?ms will he followed by sale; and if the statute gives him full
�
