Two Hundred and Eighteen and One-Half Carats Loose Emeralds v. United States

• Citation: 154 F. 839
• Decision Date: 05 June 1907
• Docket Number: 295.
• Parties: TWO HUNDRED AND EIGHTEEN AND ONE-HALF CARATS LOOSE EMERALDS v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)

154 F. 839

TWO HUNDRED AND EIGHTEEN AND ONE-HALF CARATS LOOSE EMERALDS v. UNITED STATES.

No. 295.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

June 5, 1907

This cause comes here upon writ of error by the claimant of certain loose, unpierced, cut emeralds to review a judgment of forfeiture for violation of the revenue laws. The judgment was entered October 3, 1906, in the District Court, Southern District of New York. Upon completion of the testimony, a verdict was directed in favor of the government; both sides having moved for a direction. Subsequently, upon motion for a new trial, the district judge filed an opinion, which is reported in 153 F. 643. It contains the following statement of acts, which the testimony shows to be accurate:

'The claimant, Suarez, a resident of Bogota, in the Republic of Colombia, South America, arrived in New York on October 3 1906, on the steamship Oceanic, from England. His native language was Spanish. He could not speak English, but had some knowledge of the French language, although how much does not clearly appear. On the arrival of the ship, the customs officer, who took the declarations of the passengers, asked him, in French, if he understood French, and he said that he did. He asked him how many pieces of baggage he had, and he answered, 'Three.' The examiner testified that he did not seem to clearly understand his questions as to what particular kind of baggage he had. The examiner thereupon drew his pen through the printed form on the declaration for the insertion of the number of trunks, bags or valises boxes, and other packages, and wrote under the head of 'Total,' at the end, the figure '3.' The officer asked him, in French, whether he had anything to declare, whether he had any gifts for other persons, and whether he had anything to sell, to all of which he answered 'No.' Thereupon Suarez signed his name at the end of the declaration, and swore to it before the officer. Suarez then left the ship and went on the dock. He had as baggage a trunk, a box, and two handbags tied together. He stated to the customs officer on the dock that he was going to Colombia, that he wished to leave with the collector the trunk and the box, and that he wished to take with him while in this country the two bags. They were thereupon opened, the contents examined, and found to contain nothing dutiable, and were labeled by the customs inspector as being passed. The customs inspector then called another inspector, who spoke Spanish, and directed him to ask Suarez whether he had any precious stones or jewelry upon his person or in his pockets. The inspector did so in Spanish, putting various specific and particular inquiries, and to all of them Suarez answered in the negative. He was then taken on board the steamer and searched, and in the pocket of his overcoat was found a package which contained cut emeralds loose and unpierced weighing 218 1/2 carats, which were thereupon seized by the government, and which are the subject of this suit for confiscation.' Louis J. Phillips, for plaintiff in error.

Henry L. Stimson, U.S. Atty., Winfred T. Denison and Felix T. Frankfurter, Asst. U.S. Attys.

Before LACOMBE, TOWNSEND, and COXE, Circuit Judges.

LACOMBE Circuit Judge (after stating the facts).

The information sets forth four alleged causes of forfeiture. It will be necessary only to consider the second one, which charges a violation of the provisions of section 2802, Rev. St. U.S. (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1873). That section reads as follows:

'Sec. 2802. (Penalty for concealing dutiable articles in baggage). Whenever any article subject to duty is found in the baggage of any person arriving within the United States, which was not, at the time of making entry for such baggage, mentioned to the collector before whom such entry was made, by the person making entry, such article shall be forfeited, and the person in whose baggage it is found shall be liable to a penalty of treble the value of such article.'

The contention of the claimant is that articles of merchandise found on the person of a passenger cannot be forfeited under this section, which deals with baggage...