110 Ky. 597 | Ky. Ct. App. | 1901
Opinion of the court by
Affirming.
The appellant was indicted and convicted in the Bourbon Circuit Court for failing to report on May 1, 1898. the distilled spirits withdrawn from the distillery bonded warehouse .owned by it in Bourbon county, as required' by section 4111 of the Kentucky Statutes. The particular circumstances of the offense charged in the indictment are that appellant was “on the first day of May, 1898, the-owner and proprietor of a distillery bonded warehouse;, .situated in the county of Bourbon- arid the State of Kentucky, in which said warehouse- during the four months. n.ext preceding said first day of May, 1898, distilled spirits; were stored, and upon whieh said spirits within said period the United States Government tax had been paid, -become due, and which were removed from- said warehouse, being charged by law with the duty on the 1st day of May next after said Government tax shall have been paid, become due, or the spirits removed from the warehouse, of making and transmitting to the auditor of public accounts of the-State of Kentucky and the elerk of the county court aforesaid, a -statement, sworn to- by the person whose duty it is to make the report, showing the quantity of spirits on which the Government tax had been paid or become due, and what spirits had been removed from the warehouse during the preceding four months, the years in which the said -spirits were assessed for taxation-, the .serial number-
It is also complained that the indictment fails to charge that the defendant was the owner or proprietor of the bonded warehouse at the time the distilled spirits stored therein were removed prior to the 1st day of May, 1898. We are of the opinion that this fact is sufficiently alleged in the indictment. The secretary' and treasurer of the .appellant corporation frankly admit that the company did not make or transmit either to the county clerk of Bour. bon county or to the auditor of public accounts the report required by the statute, and that there had been actually withdrawn 185 packages of whisky from the b'ond■ed warehouse on which the Government tax had been paid, and on which the tax due the State of Kentucky and the county of Bourbon had accrued. While it is perfectly1 cleiar that there was no intentional violation of the law, or fraudulent purpose to evade the payment of the tax •due to the State or county, yet appellant clearly failed to conform to the requirements of the statute, and in■■ourred the penalties therein denounced. After a, careful