35 F. 282 | U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western North Carolina | 1888
This indictment was found by a grand jury in a state court, and was duly removed to this court for trial, upon the application of the defendant, a revenue agent of the United States. The indictment is founded upon section 1082 of the Code of North Carolina, as amended by chapter 53 of the Acts of 1885. The charge preferred against the defendant is a wanton and willful destruction of the personal property of John L. Shoemaker, a citizen of Iredell county.
• The only question directly involved in this case is whether the defendant committed the act in the manner and form set forth in the bill of indictment. The object of the prosecution is not to afford redress for a private injury, but to vindicate the law alleged to have been violated by the commission of a wanton and willful wrong injurious to the public welfare. Before passing upon the facts found by the jury in the special verdict, I will consider some questions of law that were presented and discussed by counsel in arguments before the court. The solicitor for the state said in the course of his argument that the primary purpose of this prosecution was to have determined by judicial judgment the question of law whether an officer of the internal revenue service of the United States could with impunity destroy private.property before it had been condemned as forfeited in the manner provided by law. He insisted with much earnestness and eloquence that the well-settled principles of the common law, and provisions of the state and federal constitutions, had been grossly violated by the action of the defendant, as a citizen of the state had been “deprived of his property without due process of law.”' I have already stated that this question cannot be properly determined in this trial, as it is not directly involved in the issues presented in the pleadings. It has an incidental connection with the transaction
I will now proceed to inquire whether the conduct of the defendant in this ease has deprived Shoemaker of any legal right to be heard in this court in defense of his property. Where property is seized under a provision of law, the proceedings for condemnation are in rem. “In such suits the claimant is an actor, and is entitled to come before the court in that character only in virtue of his proprietory interest in fhe thing in controversy; this alone gives him a persona standi in judicio. It is necessary that he should establish his right to that character as a preliminary to his admission as a party ad litem capable of sustaining the litigation.” U. S. v. Four Hundred, and Twenty-Two Casks, etc., 1 Pet. 547. From the facts found by the jury in their special verdict it appears that the barrel of whisky seized and destroyed was illicit whisky, as it was without the stamps and brands required by law, and was found locked up in a lumber-house on the premises of Shoemaker. In this condition the law presumed that the whisky was illegally manufactured. _ The manufacturer, by his illegal action, acquired no right which could be transferred to another, or be enforced by any legal remedy. He could not be admitted as a claimant in a proceeding in rem to contest the right of the United States to a judgment of forfeiture and condemnation, unless upon affidavit he would allege that he was the bona fide owner of the property in controversy, and satisfy the court that he had a prima facie title; and then he would be required to file an answer on oath denying the facts set forth in the information before he would be entitled to a trial by jury. , Where whisky has been properly manufactured, and the producer has acquired a vested right to the product of his labor, and by some subsequent irregularity or alleged wrongful act the property becomes liable to seizure, the right of the owner is not completely divested until the property is duly seized and condemned by proper legal proceedings.
If the views which I have expressed are correct, then Shoemaker, from the facts found in the special verdict, appears to have had no right of property or right of possession in this barrel of whisky destroyed, as lie obtained or held such property in a manner that was in criminal violation of law. The fact that the barrel of whisky was concealed in his lumber-house, and was not legally stamped and branded, rendered it liable to forfeiture, and vested a title in the United States. The seizure by a properly authorized officer of the government vested the possession in the United States, and the collector would have been empowered to dispose of the same in conformity with lau! (Rev. St. § 34:60) if the property had not been destroyed. As it was destroyed, the government was deprived of the power to institute proceedings in ran for condemnation and sale; the seizure became a nullity, although there was reasonable cause of seizure; and Shoemaker was placed in a condition to assert and enforce his rights at common law, if he had any. In a civil suit in a court of competent jurisdiction he can, if he is so disposed, have the question of law reconsidered, and again determined, whether a person can acquire a legal title to property manufactured or kept in possession against the express prohibition of a positive statute. The mere possession of the barrel of whisky would not be prima facie evidence of a right of property, as it was not stamped and branded, or in a bonded warehouse, as required by lawn There are no facts in this case tending to show that Shoemaker has ever complained of the conduct of the defendant, or has desired or sought any legal redress.
I will not consider at much length the question of law elaborately discussed on the argument, whether congress, in the exercise of the power of taxation, has the constitutional right to enact a law authorizing the destruction of illicit spirits, or property used in their illegal manufacture. A statute has been enacted (1 Supp. Rev. St. U. S. 436) authorizing the destruction of property under certain circumstances, and after certain provisions have been complied with by the revenue officers making seizure, such law is a pa~t of a complicated system of taxation, and was intended to prevent frauds and evasions of the revenue law's. This delicate and important question as to the correctness of legislative action is not involved in this case, and requires no expression of judicial opinion; but I am inclined to think that- it would not be difficult to show' by reason and authority that congress has not exceeded constitutional limits. Upon the subject of taxation, and the manner and methods of assessing and enforcing the prompt and effective collection and payment of taxes, the power of congress is almost unlimited by express constitutional restraint, and embraces all objects and measures that do not encroach upon the sovereign and reserved rights of the state governments. The doctrine has been frequently announced in the decisions of the supreme court that “the power of taxation involves the power to destroy.” In the exercise
The legislature of this state, under the exercise of the police power, has by statute authorized the destruction of gaming tables, and the seizure of “all money or other property or thing of value exhibited for the purpose of alluring persons to bet,” etc., and, without affording any opportunity. to the owner to make explanation applied the same to the use of the poor and the person making the seizure. 1 Code N. C. §§ 1051, 1052. I feel sure that the manufacturers of illicit whisky are not entitled to more constitutional protection and legislative favor than gamblers or other persons whose rights of property are injured or destroyed for the security or advancement of the public welfare.
I will now proceed to consider the facts and pleadings in the case before the court. This indictment is for an alleged public wrong committed in the destruction of a barrel of illicit whisky that had been duly seized, and had no rightful owner except the United States. I readily concede the legal proposition that it is the imperative duty of a state to protect the property of a citizen from wanton and willful destruction; as such conduct is a serious injury to the peace and welfare of the whole community. But in this case no right of property of a citizen has been unlawfully invaded, and I feel sure that the peace, dignity, and general welfare of the state has not been disturbed, insulted,, or injured by the
But, assuming the position that it was the right and duty of the state to institute this indictment against an officer of the federal government, for the destruction of a barrel of “blockade whisky,” duly seized and in his lawful custody, I will proceed to consider whether the allegations in the indictment arc sustained by the facts found by the jury in their special verdict. The indictment alleges that the destruction of the property of John L. Shoemaker was done “wantonly and wdllfully.” These descriptive words have acquired a technical meaning by frequent judicial interpretation. In the recent case of State v. Massey, 97 N. C. 465, 2 S. E. Rep. 445, the supreme court of this state said: “The term ‘ wantonly’ implies turpitude; that the act done is of willful, wicked purpose. The term ‘willful’ implies that the act is done knowingly, and of stubborn purpose, but not of malice.” State v. Morgan, 98 N. C. 641, 3 S. E. Rep. 927 In State v. Whitener, 93 N. C. 590, the court gave a more extended definition of the word “willful,” when used in a statute creating a criminal offense; and this definition resembles one that was approved by the supreme court of the United States. “The word ‘ willfully,’ in the ordinary sense in which it is used in statutes, means not merely ‘ voluntarily,’ hut with a bad purpose.” Felton v. U. S., 96 U. S. 699. The act alleged in the indictment must appear from the evidence to have been done both “wantonly and willfully,” before the defendant can be convicted. I am of opinion, from the facts found by the jury, that there was no element of turpitude in the conduct of the defendant, and that he wras not actuated by a bad spirit or wicked purpose. It does not appear that, be bad any improper motive or ill will against Shoemaker, and he acted with the aid and consent of the deputy-collector, who had the barrel of whisky in legal custody. The fact that Shoemaker mounted his horse, and rode away from his premises, while the revenue officers were there, may reasonably have excited apprehension in their minds that lie had gone among his neighbors to make preparation to effect a rescue of the property, winch the officers were not prepared to remove to a place of safe deposit. But it is unnecessary to make further conjectures as to the motives and purposes of the defendant, as the facts found by the jury fail to show that he acted “wantonly and willfully,” as charged in the bill of indictment.
Let a verdict of “not guilty” be entered of record.