Dobbins Distillery v. United States
| Decision Date | 01 October 1877 |
| Citation | 96 U.S. 395,24 L.Ed. 637 |
| Parties | DOBBINS'S DISTILLERY v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Iowa.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Robert G. Ingersoll and Mr. A. L. Merriman for the plaintiff in error, cited Wharton, Crim. Law, 325.
Mr. Assistant-Attorney-General Smith, contra.
Judicial proceedings in rem, to enforce a forfeiture, cannot in general be properly instituted until the property inculpated is previously seized by the executive authority, as it is the preliminary seizure of the property that brings the same within the reach of such legal process. The Schooner Anne, 9 Cranch, 289.
Due executive seizure was made in this case of the distillery, and of the real and personal property used in connection with the same; and the information in due form was subsequently filed praying for process, and that the property seized should be condemned by the definitive sentence of the court. Pursuant to the prayer of the information, the record shows that process of monition was issued in due form, and that it was duly served by the marshal. Sixteen causes of forfeiture were alleged in the information, all of which, except the first three, were abandoned at the trial.
Sufficient appears to show that the claimant was the owner of the distillery and all the other property seized, and that he, prior to the alleged causes of seizure and forfeiture, leased the property to the party in possession of the same at the time the alleged acts of forfeiture were perpetrated by the lessee and occupant. Three of the alleged causes of forfeiture only need be noticed, and they are in substance and effect as follows:——
1. That the lessee, occupant, and operator of the distillery neglected and refused to keep the books required by law, and make the required entries in the same; that he made false entries in the books kept in the distillery, and that he omitted to enter in the same the facts required by law, with intent to defraud the revenue, and to conceal from the revenue officers facts and particulars required to be stated and entered in such books, with like intent to defraud the revenue; and that he refused to produce the books kept in the distillery when thereto requested by the revenue officers, contrary to the statute in such case made and provided. 15 Stat. 132.
2. That the distillery, the distilled spirits, and distilling apparatus seized were owned by the lessee, occupant, and operator, and some other person unknown, and were intended to be used by the owners in the business of a distiller, in a manner to defraud the United States, contrary to the act of Congress. Id. 142.
3. That the property seized was used by its owners to defraud the United States of the tax to which the spirits distilled were by law subject, and that the United States had been thereby defrauded of a part of such tax, in violation of law. Id. 59.
Service was made; and the owner and lessor of the distillery and other property seized appeared, and was permitted by leave of court to make defence. His defence consists of an averment that he has no knowledge or information upon the subject of the information, and of a denial of each and every one of the charges made against the property seized. Issue being joined, the parties went to trial, and the verdict and decree of condemnation were in favor of the plaintiffs. Exceptions were duly filed by the claimant; and he sued out a writ of error, and removed the cause into this court.
Matters set forth in the bill of exceptions which are not assigned for error will not be re-examined.
Four errors are assigned, in substance and effect as follows: 1. That the court erred in admitting in evidence the statements of the lessee of the property, as contained in the first paragraph of the bill of exceptions. 2. That the court erred in admitting the evidence set forth in that part of the bill of exceptions denominated paragraphs 2 and 3. 3. That the court erred in charging the jury that it was unnecessary for them to find that the claimant was implicated in the frauds of the lessee and operator of the distillery, or that he had any knowledge of his fraudulent acts or omissions. That if the jury find that the claimant leased the property to the occupant and operator for the purposes of a distillery, and that the lessee committed the alleged frauds, the government is entitled to a verdict, even though the jury should be of opinion that the claimant was ignorant of the lessee's fraudulent acts and omissions. 4. That the court erred in including the real estate in the decree of condemnation or forfeiture.
Instructions not included in the assignment of errors were given by the court to the jury, which deserve to be briefly noticed before proceeding to examine the rulings and instruction of the court, which, it is insisted, present a sufficient cause to reverse the judgment.
Requests for instructions having been presented by the claimant, and the same having been refused, the court, of its own motion, instructed the jury to the effect, that if the evidence satisfied the jury that the lessee and occupant of the distillery made sales of spirits produced by him which he omitted or neglected to enter in his books, with intent to defraud the government, or with intent to conceal from the officers the fact of such sales, then he would be guilty, and it would be their duty to find for the plaintiffs under the first article of the information; that the mere absence of that party from the State or the country was not of itself evidence upon which they could base a verdict, but if they found that he absconded and fled from justice when detected and charged with the frauds alleged against him in the case, that that fact might be considered by the jury, with other evidence, as tending to prove his fraudulent intents and guilt; that the information is a proceeding to condemn and forfeit to the United States certain property, both real and personal, for alleged offences against the revenue law; that the property in question consists of a distillery, with its fixtures and apparatus, and the ground within the enclosure on which the distillery stands, together with the various articles of personal property enumerated in the information, and that the present defendant is the claimant of the property contesting the grounds of forfeiture assigned by the government; that the gist of the proceeding consists in the alleged fraudulent acts and omissions of the lessee and occupant of the distillery, or his agent and employees; and whether the charges against him be positive acts done by him, or omissions to do what the law requires of him, as a distiller, fraud is a necessary element in the case, without which there can be no forfeiture.
Evidence of the statements and declarations of the lessee and occupant of the distillery, voluntarily made while under arrest and afterwards, were offered by the district attorney, as tending to show his fraudulent intent in the doing and omitting to do certain acts assigned in the information as causes of forfeiture; and the ruling of the court in admitting the same, subject to objection by the claimant, constitutes the first assignment of error.
Throughout the trial the claimant appears to have assumed, as the theory of the defence to the information, that he was the accused party, and that he was on trial for a criminal offence created and defined by an act of Congress. Instead of that, the forfeiture claimed in the information is aimed against the distillery, and the real and personal property used in connection with the same, including the real estate used to facilitate the operation of distilling, and which is conductive to that end as the means of ingress or egress, and all personal property of the kind found there, together with the distilled spirits and stills wherever found.
Nor is it necessary that the owner of the property should have knowledge that the lessee and distiller was committing fraud on the public revenue, in order that the information of forfeiture should be maintained. If he knowingly suffers and permits his land...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Telephone News System, Inc. v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co.
...See United States v. One Ford Coupé Automobile, 272 U.S. 321, 328, 47 S.Ct. 154, 71 L.Ed. 279 (1926); Dobbins' Distillery v. United States, 96 U.S. 395, 24 L.Ed. 637 (1878). The governing inquiry on the issue of the civil or penal character of a provision is whether the legislative aim in p......
-
Wilmot v. Contra Costa Cnty. Employees' Ret. Ass'n
...In 1877 the court would simply state "the remedy of forfeiture ... is plainly one of a civil nature." ( Dobbins's Distillery v. United States (1877) 96 U.S. 395, 399, 24 L.Ed. 637.)The issue in Helvering v. Mitchell , supra , 303 U.S. 391, 58 S.Ct. 630 was the 1928 enactment adding a famili......
-
U.S. v. Bajakajian
...States 16 (citing, inter alia, The Palmyra, 12 Wheat. 1, 13, 6 L.Ed. 531 (1827) (forfeiture of ship); Dobbins's Distillery v. United States, 96 U.S. 395, 400-401, 24 L.Ed. 637 (1877) (forfeiture of distillery)). In so doing, the Government relies upon a series of cases involving traditional......
-
McKeehan v. United States
...L.Ed. 279 (1926); Goldsmith Jr.-Grant Co. v. United States, 254 U.S. 505, 41 S.Ct. 189, 65 L.Ed. 376 (1921); Dobbin's Distillery v. United States, 96 U.S. 395, 24 L.Ed. 637 (1877); Henderson's Distilled Spirits, 14 Wallace (81 U.S.) 44, 20 L.Ed. 815 (1871); Palmyra, 12 Wheat. (25 U.S.) 1, 6......
-
Clearing the smoke from the battlefield: understanding congressional intent regarding the innocent owner provision of 21 U.S.C. 881(a) (7).
...the same, without any regard whatsoever to the personal misconduct or responsibility of the owner." Dobbins's Distillery v. United States, 96 U.S. 395, 401 (1877). (33) H.R. Rep. No. 91-1444, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. pt. 1, at 1-26 (1970), reprinted in 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4566. (34) 21 U.S.C. [su......
-
Remarks of Marvin E. Wolfgang at the Guns and Violence Symposium at Northwestern University School of Law, February 3, 1996.
...Mercedes, 917 F.2d 415, 419 (9th Cir. 1990). (54) The Palmyra, 25 U.S. at 14-15 (1827). See also Dobbin's Distillery v. United States, 96 U.S. 395, 401 (1877) (holding that no guilt attaches to the person in in rem proceedings). (55) Sandra Guerra, Reconciling Federal Asset Forfeitures and ......
-
Civil Forfeiture and the Eighth Amendment After Austin
...(1827). 72. 3 Stat. 77 (1819); 3 Stat. 113 (1820). 73. The Palmyra, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) at 2. 74. Id. at 5. 75. Id. at 14. 76. See id. 77. 96 U.S. 395 78. Id. at 396. 79. See id. at 397. 80. Id. at 404. 81. 254 U.S. 505 (1921). 82. Id. at 511-13. 83. Id. at 509. 84. See id. at 510. 85. 272 ......
-
Double Jeopardy-civil Forfeitures and Criminal Punishment: Who Determines What Punishments Fit the Crime
...v. United States, a case where the distillery sought to be forfeited was leased, and the lessee's intent was not known to the owner. 96 U.S. 395, 395-97 (1878). In Dobbins, the Court said that "[n]othing can be plainer in legal decision than the proposition that the offence therein denned i......