27 F. Cas. 1098 | S.D.N.Y. | 1879
This is a motion for a new trial after verdict for the plaintiffs. The information was under Rev. St; | 3453. It charges that the 16 barrels of distilled spirits seized were articles upon which taxes were imposed, and were found in the place mentioned, in the possession of persons unknown, for the purpose of being sold and removed in fraud of the internal revenue laws, and with design to avoid payment of taxes thereon. It claims the forfeiture of said spirits and a large number of other articles of personal property found in the same place. A claim was interposed for the personal property other than the spirits, and upon the trial it was insisted, and now upon this motion it is insisted, that under that section of the Revised Statutes there can be no forfeiture of this personal property because it was not alleged or proved that any “raw materials” intended to be used in the manufacture of articles subject to tax were found in the place. The argument of the claimant is that the words “articles or raw materials” do not refer to the words “all goods, wares, merchandize, articles or objects,” but only to the words “all raw materials found in the
It is further objected that the personal property subject to forfeiture under this section is only such personal property other than “tools, implements and'instruments” as are in some way connected with the intended illegal sale or removal of the taxable articles or with the intended illegal manufacture of such articles from the raw materials; and the case of U. S. v. 33 Barrels of Spirits [Case No. 16,470], is relied upon as authority for this limitation of the words “other personal property whatsoever.” While that decision sustains the point taken by the counsel for the claimant, I think it is in conflict with the views expressed in this district and circuit in the eases cited above. It seems to me, also, that the possible consequences of great hardship and injustice that might result from giving the words “other personal property whatsoever” their full and proper meaning, upon which the restrictive construction adopted by Judge Lowell is at least to a considerable extent based, namely, that In. the case of a building occupied by many different and independent occupants personal property of enormous value in the possession of persons having no connection whatever with the proscribed articles or raw materials might become forfeited without any fault on their part, do not necessarily result from the construction giving the words “other personal property whatsoever” their full meaning. To be forfeited- they must be in the “building or place” where the proscribed articles or raw materials are found. The word “place” seems here to refer to a place less than a building-or to-a part of a building, as well as to a place other than a building or part of a building. There appears to be a reference to the “place” where the person who has in his possession the guilty articles has also other personal property. Therefore, the statute may be read as providing that all other personal property in the same building or the same place other than a building, occupied by the person or persons having the possession in such building or other place of the prohibited articles, shall be forfeited. It seems to me that this limitation of the language is much more in accordance with the spirit of the statute than that suggested by Judge Lowell, and that it avoids all forfeitures which are not clearly within the purpose of the internal revenue laws. Those laws are very-severe in declaring forfeitures as against violators of the law, and it.is entirely consistent with their spirit and provisions hi other respects that all the personal property found-in the same occupation with the proscribed objects should be forfeited, subject, of course, to the power of remission vested in the secretary of the treasury in case the property of innocent persons should, by some mischance, be included in the forfeiture.
The case of U. S. v. Locomotive Boiler [Case No. 15,621], decided in the Eastern district, has no bearing on this case. The demurrer to the information in that case was properly sustained because it did not allege the finding either of articles on which taxes were imposed, etc., or raw materials.
Motion denied.