Lozano v. United States

• Citation: 17 F.2d 7
• Decision Date: 31 January 1927
• Docket Number: No. 4856.,4856.
• Parties: LOZANO v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

17 F.2d 7 (1927)

LOZANO v. UNITED STATES.

No. 4856.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

January 31, 1927.

R. D. Wright, of Laredo, Tex. (John S. Morris, of Laredo, Tex., Hicks, Hicks, Dickson & Bobbitt, of San Antonio, Tex., and R. D. Wright, of Laredo, Tex., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

H. M. Holden, U. S. Atty., of Houston, Tex.

Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit Judges.

WALKER, Circuit Judge.

This was a libel for the forfeiture of "16,000 pesos Mexican gold coin." The libel, after alleging the seizure of the coin by a United States customs inspector on or about the 13th day of June, 1924, alleged that said inspector "holds the same subject to condemnation and forfeiture to the United States of America by reason of the fact that at the time of the seizure the said 16,000 pesos Mexican gold coin were concealed upon the person of said Emilio Garza Lozano, Jr., and were then and there being smuggled from the Republic of Mexico into the United States across the footbridge at Laredo, Tex., without being submitted to customs inspection or being declared at the customs house, or entry being made thereof, as required by the customs laws of the United States." The evidence adduced was testimony as to the circumstances of the discovery of the gold coin by the customs inspector, and the seizure of it. J. R. Devine, the customs inspector, testified to the following effect: Emilio Garza Lozano passed the door of the customs office into which a person ordinarily would enter to declare merchandise. Witness hailed him, and he said "No" in reply to a question whether he had anything from Mexico to declare. After he came into the customs office, the witness felt a hard substance on his person, and, in reply to a question as to what it was, he said it was $16,000 gold Mexican money. Thereupon the coin was seized. The claimant's son, who was the person who brought the coin from Mexico, testified to the following effect: In bringing the money from Mexico he had it concealed on his person, because that was the only way he could bring it from Mexico, as the exportation of Mexican gold coin is forbidden by the law of Mexico. When he left Mexico, he did not intend to declare the money on this side of the river, because he did not think it was necessary, and knew there was no duty on it. When he approached Mr. Devine, the customs inspector, who was standing at the door of the customs office, Mr. Devine motioned to witness, and told him to come in, and he went into the office. When asked by Mr. Devine if he had anything on, he said, "Yes, gold," and stated the amount he had. The court directed a verdict for the United States, and made the following statement to the jury: "While there is a conflict in the testimony of the government and that of the claimant as to whether the claimant seasonably declared the gold, all the circumstances and admissions of Emilio Garza Lozano strongly corroborate the government's case that Lozano did not make a declaration as required by statute and regulations before the seizure. The gold was concealed on the person of Lozano, and he admitted he...