Jackson v. United States
| Decision Date | 28 July 1884 |
| Citation | 21 F. 35 |
| Parties | JACKSON, Claimant, etc., v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
A. J Dittenhoefer, for claimant.
Elihu Root, U.S. Atty., for the United States.
The writ of error brings up for review a judgment of the district court for the Southern district of New York condemning as forfeited to the United States certain cigars which the injunction alleges were 'manufactured in some manufactory, United States internal revenue collection district and state, to the attorney for the United States unknown, and were removed from said manufactory or place where the cigars were made without stamping, burning, or impressing into each box, in a legible and durable manner the number * * * of the manufactory, and the number of the district and the state.'
Section 16 of the act of March 1, 1879, declares that whenever any cigars are removed from any manufactory or place where cigars are made without thus stamping into each box the number of the manufactory, and the number of the district and state they shall be forfeited.
The evidence showed that the boxes here were stamped with the words 'Factory No. 120, Dist. Florida,' but that although there was such a factory at Key West, Florida, the cigars in suit were never manufactured at that manufactory. A label upon the boxes indicated that the cigars were made at Key West, in factory No. 120, September 4, 1882. If these cigars were made in and removed from any other manufactory in the United States, it is clear they were not stamped with the number of the proper manufactory, and the case is directly within the statute, as they were not stamped with the number of the manufactory from which they were removed, at the time they were removed or at any other time.
The plaintiff in error contends that it was incumbent upon the government to show affirmatively that when the cigars were removed from the factory in which they were made they were not in boxes properly stamped, and that proof of their being found in the boxes seized does not establish the fact that they were in them when removed from the factory, and that it is to be presumed in favor of innocence that they were taken out of the original and properly stamped boxes and put in those where they were when seized. The exceptions to the findings of the court below raise this point, and it is the only point made by the exceptions which has any color of merit. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. 673 Cases of Distilled Spirits and Wines
...every fact which is an element of a proceeding for forfeiture of distilled spirits as alleged in the information of libel. Jackson v. United States, D.C., 21 F. 35; In re Quantity of Distilled Spirits, Fed.Cas. No. 11494; and United States v. One Marmon Automobile, D.C., 5 F.2d 113, 115. Th......
-
United States v. Cleage
...... section 633 of the Revised Statutes now repealed, over the. judgments of District Courts (Blair v. Allen, 3. Dill. 101, Fed. Cas. No. 1,483; Wear v. Mayer (C.C.). 2 McCrary, 172, 6 F. 658; Town of Lyons v. Lyons. National Bank (C.C.) 8 Fed. 369; Doty v. Jewett. (C.C.) 19 F. 337; Jackson v. United States. (C.C.) 21 F. 35); and it was reaffirmed and applied by. the Supreme Court in Rogers v. United States, 141. U.S. 548, 554, 12 Sup.Ct. 91, 35 L.Ed. 853, a case tried in a. District Court, wherein it was also held that sections 649. and 700, supra, relate exclusively to trials ......