*1 derogate plain does ing from mean- Lastly, operative provisions. the District Court concluded that
payments following the accrual permanent disability salary were either pension payments.
aat reduced rate or
The evidence affords basis for this de- payments
termination. The were made only upon permanent dis- ability by competent medical evidence
with no that services
rendered.
For judgment the reasons stated the
of the District Court will be reversed. Judge HASTIE thinks that find- ings and conclusions the District Court permissible proper
were on the facts and, therefore, of this case would affirm judgment of the District Court. America,
UNITED STATES of Appellee, JUZWIAK, Appellant.
Walter
No.
Docket 25135.
Appeals
United States Court of
Willis,
City,
William
York
E.
New
Second Circuit.
appellant.
Argued
6, 1958.
June
Lunney,
Atty.,
James R.
Asst. U. S.
(Paul
City
Williams,
New York
W.
U.
Aug. 25,
Decided
brief),
Atty.,
City,
S.
York
on
New
appellee.
CLARK,
Judge, and
Chief
Before
Judges.
MOORE,
PICKETT and
Circuit
Judge.
PICKETT, Circuit
Juzwiak,
defendant,
Walter
having
citizen of
after
New
convicted of
law, departed
York
from
State
register-
without first
United States
ing
Title 18
Sec-
U.S.C.A.
prescribed
the rules
tion
Treasury.
Secretary
He
guilty
a one-count information
found
the aforementioned Sec-
of violation of
provides:
1407, tion
*2
845
therefore,
register,
give
and
ef-
“(a)
to further
order
In
People of
Lambert v.
the rule
obligations
under
of
United
of the
to the
fect
225,
California,
78
Hague
con-
of
State
pursuant
to the
States
rehearing
228,
de-
240, 2 L.Ed.2d
1912,
proclaimed as a
of
vention
410,
937,
2 L.Ed.2d
1915,
nied 355
78 S.Ct.
3,
(38
U.S.
treaty
Stat.
March
419,
stand.
the conviction cannot
convention
1912),
the limitation
and
treaty on
proclaimed
1931,
as a
of
July
dispute.
The
are not in
facts
1571),
(48
1933,
10,
Stat.
been
had
defendant
admitted that
effective
more
order to facilitate
of the
convicted
the violation
of
traffic
international
of the
control
mentioned,
he
and that
left
law above
prevent
drugs,
in Narcotic
registering and
United States without
drug addiction,
citi-
spread
of
by
obtaining
certificate
who is
of
United States
zen
not
he did
He testified that
statute.
drugs,
narcotic
uses
addicted to or
statutory requirement
of
know
* *
*
convicted
been
who has
or
employment
accepted
when he
any
narcotic
of
of a violation
Europe.
ship
bound
as
seaman on a
United
laws
or marihuana
of
first learned
He stated that he
thereof,
any
States, or of
state
registration requirement
was
he
when
imprisonment
penalty
for which
Agent
Treasury
questioned by
at
depart
year, shall
one
more than
ship
United
to the
time
returned
* *
*
States,
United
from
States.
registers, under
person
unless such
generally
when
It has
held
may
regulations
be
as
such rules
an
been made
has not
criminal
intent
Secretary
prescribed by
crime,
statutory
of a
essential element
official,
Treasury
customs
with a
alleged
proved
or
be
such intent need not
point
en-
agent,
employee
at
or
Am.Jur.,
14
sustain a conviction.
Un-
try
customs station.
or a border
24; Shevlin-Carpenter
Law,
Criminal
§
by
prohibited
law or
less otherwise
57,
Minnesota, 218
U.S.
v. State
Co.
regulation
customs
Federal
663,
also
L.Ed. 930.
54
See
30 S.Ct.
employee
official,agent,
shall issue
or
Cir.,
Hohensee,
243
3
United
person
any
de-
a certificate to
976,
367,
denied
certiorari
F.2d
States;
parting
from the
rehearing
1136,
1058, 1 L.Ed.2d
77
shall, upon return-
and such
927,
1376, 1 L.
354
77 S.Ct.
denied
U.S.
States,
ing
surrender
to the
States,
Hargrove
1441;
v. United
Ed.2d
offi-
the customs
such certificate
cial,
1276;
Cir.,
90 A.L.R.
F.2d
67
present
employee
agent,
or
Cir.,
299 F.
v. United
Landen
entry
port
customs
border
or
States, 342
v. United
Morissette
75. In
station.
L.Ed.
U.S.
any of the
“(b)
violates
Whoever
Supreme
discusses
shall
provisions
section
of this
the common
sources are
whose
punished
each such
such,
and,
require
of criminal
as
or
more
$1000
a fine of not
conviction,
those
sustain
intent to
one
less than
imprisonment for not
depends upon mental
the crime
where
elements,
years, or both.”
more than three
only
or
acts or
but consist
statute.1
forbidden
omissions
informa-
that the
is made
The contention
category
latter
this
charge
included
to offenses
failure
did not
tion
involv
those
referred
are sometimes
ing
the evi-
willful
United States
public
In
welfare.
not
did
defendant
that the
dence discloses
statutory
Balint,
have actual
against
state,
offenses,
those
type
referring
of
In
public
property,
person,
or
morals.
These
said:
fense the Court
Many
in the
offenses
neatly
of these
into
do not fit
cases
aggressions
positive
in-
nature
accepted
of common-law
classifications
charged
punishment
L.Ed.
the defendant was
particular
hibition
making
acts,
nar-
forbidden
sale
the state
in the mainte-
allegation
cotics
an
public
of criminal
nance of a
provide
sustaining
conviction,
intent.
‘that he who shall do them
do
shall
*3
peril
said:
them at his
and will not be
plead
good
heard to
in defense
faith
general
“While
rule
the
at common
ignorance.’ Many
or
of
instances
law
scienter was a nec-
was that
regulatory
this are to be found in
essary
element
in
indictment
measures
in the exercise of what
is
every crime, and this
of
police power
called the
where the
regard
statutory
was followed in
to
emphasis
evidently
is
statute
statutory
even where
upon
of
achievement
some social bet-
it
definition did not in
include
terms
terment
punishment
rather
than the
472),
(Reg.
Sleep, 8 Cox C.C.
v.
of the crimes as in cases of mala in
of
there has been
modification
a
se.”
respect
prosecutions
in
to
view
day
On
purpose
Court,
which
same
of
under statutes the
another
in
case,
a re-
such
said:
would be obstructed
“ * * *
legis-
quirement.
If
question of
offense be a
It is a
statutory
one,
construed
intent
lative
to be
intent or knowl
edge
objected
is
it,
not made
court.
has been
an element of
charge
person
an act
punishment
for
of a
indictment need not
”
*
*
*
knowledge
ignorant of
or
in
of law when
intent.
making
so,
Behrman,
absence
an
facts
it
States
U.S.
280, 288,
process
303, 304,
that ob-
of
But
of due
law.
66 L.Ed.
619.2
jection
and overruled
considered
Shevlin-Carpenter Co. v. [State
in
In
case
[78
243]
the Lambert
57, 69,
Minnesota,
prosecu-
Court had under consideration
of]
930),
(54
Angeles,
in
L.Ed.
tion for
violation of a Los
pro-
held that
in the
which
ordinance
it
California
which
vasions,
reputation.
damage
so
common
with which the
Un-
to an offender’s
neg-
dealt,
considerations,
nature of
in the
but are
have
often
courts
der
turned to
requires care,
regula-
in-
construing
or
the law
lect where
statutes and
Many
duty.
imposes a
it
action where
of intent
which make
mention
tions
regulations
dispensing
holding
in no
result
violations
with it
as
injury
person or
guilty
to
or immediate
direct
act alone makes out the crime.
the
This
danger
merely
property
not, however,
create the
but
has
been without ex-
probability
pressions
misgiving.”
seeks
which the law
of it
or
of
do
such offenses
minimize. While
to strike down whatever they may ultimate doubts as to its have legislation wisdom, than to invalidate Angeles
such as Los ordinance case, “but which
Lambert was most designed technique law enforcement enforcement
the convenience of agencies through list re- then
names and addresses felons siding given community com- piled.” 225, 229,
243, 2 Lambert L.Ed.2d And the sharp case disclosed a division so *5 the extension of its thought un-
to new areas well notwithstanding likely. some Hence, depart from
concern, I am content not
my brothers’ final result. Emily Swo- L.
Gustave T. SWOBODA boda, Wife, Appellants, Husband and America,
UNITED STATES of Appellee.
No. 12542. Appeals States Court Third Circuit. 16, 1958.
Argued May Sept.
Decided