Kent v. United States
| Decision Date | 25 November 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 11529.,11529. |
| Citation | 157 F.2d 1 |
| Parties | KENT v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Edwin H. Grace, of New Orleans, La., for appellant.
Herbert W. Christenberry, U. S. Atty., and N. E. Simoneaux, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of New Orleans, La., for appellee.
Before SIBLEY, HOLMES, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.
Writ of Certiorari Denied November 25, 1946. See 67 S.Ct. 297.
A truck carrying fifty-two cases (about 113 gallons) of distilled spirits was seized, with the liquors, by federal officers in Louisiana, and libelled for forfeiture because intended to be used in violating the revenue laws, especially those about selling at wholesale, without registering and paying tax, and without keeping the required records. Kent, who was in possession, claimed the liquors and truck. The case was tried by the judge, without a jury, who rendered a decree of forfeiture, on an opinion and on findings of fact and conclusions of law. Kent had a federal permit to sell distilled liquors at retail at East Jackson, Mississippi, on premises known as "The Spot", but had not operated the place for this purpose for several weeks before the date of seizure, and it was opened up the day following by two other persons who rented from Kent. Kent had made several liquor transactions in wholesale lots not at "The Spot" before and after the date of seizure, which appeared to be sales and not merely transportations for others. The transaction in progress when stopped by the seizure was claimed by the United States to be similar. Kent contended that it did not appear but that he was taking the seized liquors to "The Spot" for lawful sale by himself at retail, and that he had not rented the entire premises. It was shown, however, and the Court found as a fact, that at the time of seizure Kent first denied that the truck and liquors were his; then admitted ownership, and said he would already have been in Jackson and "have sold the stuff" if he had not stopped at his father's house overnight, and that he intended to sell it to anyone in Jackson, "wholesale or retail, whichever he could get the most money for it". Later he said he intended to take the liquor to "The Spot". The crucial fact question was whether the liquors were intended to be used by Kent in making lawful sales at "The Spot" under his permit, or in making sales elsewhere, or at wholesale, or without keeping records. The Court found the latter to be true, laying some stress on the failure of Kent, who knew his own purposes in this transaction as well as in the others contended to be similar, to testify as a witness about them.
It was not error to consider Kent's failure to testify as a circumstance indicative of the truth. He had made conflicting statements about his intentions. He had furnished no very convincing proof that he was intending to reopen "The Spot" for retailing. He himself did not reopen it. The provision of the Fifth Amendment: "nor shall be compelled in any Criminal Case to be a witness against himself" has no application. This is not a criminal case but a civil case, and no one seeks to compel Kent to testify. He has voluntarily appeared in the case as claimant. He voluntarily does not tell what he knows. His silence may well count against him, as against any other civil litigant. So also the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harper v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...for the crime. It has been held inapplicable where the forfeiture proceeding was independent of any criminal proceeding. Kent v. United States, 157 F.2d 1 (C.A. 5, 1946) (on rehearing). A civil tax fraud case is not ‘a criminal case’ or the adjunct of one. The civil aspects of Federal tax c......
-
City of Philadelphia v. Kenny
...the court in the Civil case may draw any adverse inference which is reasonable from the assertion of the privilege. Kent v. United States, 157 F.2d 1 (5th Cir.) Cert. denied, 329 U.S. 785, 67 S.Ct. 297, 91 L.Ed. 673 (1946); Paynes v. Lee, 362 F.Supp. 797 (M.D.La.1973), Aff'd, 487 F.2d 1307 ......
-
Snead v. United States
...illicit distilling. See Williams v. United States, 5 Cir., 199 F.2d 921; Stagner v. United States, 5 Cir., 197 F.2d 992; Kent v. United States, 5 Cir., 157 F.2d 1, certiorari denied 329 U.S. 785, 67 S. Ct. 297, 91 L.Ed. It is argued that Snead may have had the yeast and malt for sale to oth......
-
Irving v. Breazeale
...804; Anderson v. United States, (5 CA), 1950, 185 F.2d 343; Williams v. United States, (5 CA), 1952, 199 F.2d 921; and Kent v. United States, (5 CCA), 1946, 157 F.2d 1; and in United States v. Johnson, (5 CA) 288 F.2d 40, it is said: "Failure of a part to produce relevant and important evid......