One Buick Auto. v. United States

• Decision Date: 29 September 1921
• Docket Number: 5653.
• Parties: ONE BUICK AUTOMOBILE et al. v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

275 F. 809

ONE BUICK AUTOMOBILE et al. v. UNITED STATES.

No. 5653.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

September 29, 1921

James S. Davenport, of Tulsa, Okl., for plaintiff in error.

C. C Lydick, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Shawnee, Okl. (John T. Harley U.S. Atty., of Coalgate, Okl., on the brief), for the United States.

Before HOOK and STONE, Circuit Judges, and TRIEBER, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This is a writ of error to review a judgment of condemnation of one automobile. The United States Attorney filed a libel against it, asking for a forfeiture thereof for violation of that provision of the Indian Appropriation Act of Congress approved March 2, 1917, 39 St. 970 (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St Ann. Supp. 1919, Sec. 4141a), which reads:

'That automobiles or any other vehicles or conveyances used in introducing, or attempting to introduce, intoxicants into the Indian country, or where the introduction is prohibited by treaty or federal statute, whether used by the owner thereof or other person, shall be subject to the seizure libel, and forfeiture provided in section 2140 of the Revised Statutes of the United States.'

The libel charged that on or about the 30th day of May, 1919, in Craig county, Okl., Hiram Stevens, deputy special officer, by virtue of authority conferred upon him by law, seized one Buick roadster (describing it) and brought it to the city of Miami, Okl., within the Eastern district of Oklahoma, where it is now held as forfeited to the United States, and subject to libel and sale by the United States, for the following reasons:

'That at the time of the seizure of said above-described property by said officer, as above set out, said property was in the possession of and being used by T. Wilson for the purpose of introducing, transporting, and conveying from without the state of Oklahoma, into the eastern part of the state of Oklahoma, formerly Indian Territory, spirituous, vinous, fermented, and intoxicating liquor, in violation of section 8 of the Act of Congress of March 1, 1895 (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, Sec. 4136b), and other acts of Congress in such cases made and provided; that the said place where the said property was seized by said officers is and was at the time of the seizure within the Eastern judicial district of the state of Oklahoma; and that the introduction and transportation of liquor into said district was at the time of the seizure of said above described property prohibited by federal statute.'

Then follows the usual prayer for monition and judgment. A monition in proper form was issued and served, whereupon the plaintiff in error filed an intervention. In the intervention he claims ownership of the car and denies all the allegations in the libel. There was a trial to a jury, and a verdict in favor of the United States, on which judgment was entered.

There are numerous assignments of error, but some have been abandoned, as they are not insisted on in the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error. It is assigned as error that the court admitted in evidence testimony tending to show that, shortly before the seizure of the car, it was seen going in the direction of Joplin, Mo., and that the whisky found therein when the car was seized, 204 quart bottles labeled 'Old Davidson' was such as was being sold at the time in Joplin, Mo. There was also evidence tending to show that the day before the intervener was seen at Joplin, and that the car was there at that time. In our opinion the court committed no error in admitting this testimony, as circumstances to establish the fact that the whisky was being introduced into that part of the state of Oklahoma which was...