THE RAY OF BLOCK ISLAND, 1888.

• Decision Date: 03 March 1926
• Docket Number: No. 1888.,1888.
• Citation: 11 F.2d 522
• Parties: THE RAY OF BLOCK ISLAND. UNITED STATES v. DODGE et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

11 F.2d 522 (1926)

THE RAY OF BLOCK ISLAND.^* UNITED STATES v. DODGE et al.

No. 1888.

Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

March 3, 1926.

Harold A. Andrews, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Providence, R. I. (Norman S. Case, U. S. Atty., of Providence, R. I., on the brief), for the United States.

Daniel T. Hagan and Rosenfeld & Hagan, all of Providence, R. I., for appellee.

Before BINGHAM, JOHNSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

BINGHAM, Circuit Judge.

This is a libel of information filed by the United States on March 5, 1925, in the federal District Court for Rhode Island against the motor boat Ray of Block Island for forfeiture under section 26, title 2, of the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 10138½mm).

In the libel it is alleged in substance: (1) That on the 18th day of April, 1924, police officers of the city of Providence discovered the claimant, Joshua Trueman Dodge, in the act of transporting, in violation of the National Prohibition Act, a quantity of intoxicating liquor in the motorboat within said district; (2) that said officers then and there seized the liquors and motorboat, and arrested said Dodge, who was in charge of the motorboat, and that subsequently said Dodge was arrested by United States officers; (3) that said Dodge, on the 10th day of December, 1924, was duly convicted in said District Court of the offense of unlawful transportation for which he had been arrested; (4) that, after the seizure, the motorboat was turned over to the federal Prohibition Director for said district, and was, as the time the libel was filed, in his possession; and (5) that by reason of the premises the motorboat became forfeited.

On this libel the usual warrant and monition were issued and duly served.

The claimants filed a motion to dismiss, as follows:

"1. That the National Prohibition Act confines the duty of seizures of vehicles to officers of the United States, and that a seizure by police officers under said act is without authority and is not recognized by a subsequent surrender of the vehicle to federal officers.

"2. That there is no authority under the state prohibition law to seize any boat or vehicle found transporting intoxicating liquor.

"3. That forfeiture can only be declared if the thing sought to be forfeited was lawfully taken into possession."

On the same day the claimants filed an answer, admitting the allegations of the libel, but denying that they constituted cause for forfeiture.

After hearing, the District Judge filed an opinion granting the motion to dismiss, on the ground that section 26 of the National Prohibition Act, read in connection with other provisions of the act, did not confer authority upon officers other than those of the United States to enforce the provisions of said section, following the decisions in the Ninth Circuit of United States v. Loomis, 297 F. 359, and United States v. Thomas, 297 F. 362; it being conceded that the law of the state of Rhode Island conferred no authority to seize a vehicle or boat found transporting intoxicating liquor, and that, at the time the Ray was turned over to the federal prohibition director, all liquors previously found upon her by the police had been removed.

We agree with the decision of the court below as...