United States v. 18 Barrels of Alcohol

• Decision Date: 02 June 1927
• Citation: 20 F.2d 186
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. 18 BARRELS OF ALCOHOL, etc.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

20 F.2d 186 (1927)

UNITED STATES v. 18 BARRELS OF ALCOHOL, etc.

District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

June 2, 1927.

George W. Coles, U. S. Atty., of Philadelphia, Pa.

H. Horace Dawson, of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

KIRKPATRICK, District Judge.

This is a proceeding by libel filed by the government to forfeit 18 barrels of alcohol. From the evidence the court finds the following facts:

On the night of December 22, 1923, government agents had under observation a certain three-story building at 474 North Centre street, Pottsville, Pa. There was a barn in the rear of the building, and the officers saw a touring car going into the barn; the door being closed after it. Looking into the barn, either through a window or through an opening of some kind in the building, they saw four cases of bottles being loaded upon the car; the respondent here, Mausoleno, being one of the men engaged in the loading. The car then backed out and was promptly seized by the officers. They discovered in it 46 bottles of whisky, in four cases. They then obtained a search warrant, returned and searched the barn, and discovered and seized the alcohol, which is the subject of this proceeding.

The respondent offered in evidence a basic permit, class H, authorizing him to use alcohol for other than beverage purposes in the manufacture of certain fruit extracts for soft drinks. The permit was issued for 250 wine gallons per quarterly period, and the application, which was also offered, provided that "the maximum quantity of intoxicating liquor which will be produced or received during any quarterly period of the calendar year, plus the quantity on hand in the beginning of such period, will be 500 proof gallons of alcohol." The permit was dated May 27, 1921, and upon it was stamped the consent of the director to a change of address from the original address to 474 North Centre street, where the seizure took place. This stamped approval bore date February 21, 1922. The respondent did not testify, and offered no other evidence, although in his answer he asserts that he was discharged by a United States commissioner in a prosecution for illegal possession of the alcohol in question.

The respondent argues that the basic permit of May 27, 1921, which apparently was still in force, together with the commissioner's approval of the change of address of his business of February 21, 1922, established the legality of his possession of the liquor at the time of the seizure. In connection with this position, it will be noted that there is no evidence as to how the alcohol found on the premises was acquired. The permit which the respondent offered is a basic permit, and does not give him the right to purchase alcohol. For that he must have a permit to purchase, and there is no evidence of any such permit. It would certainly not be argued that a permit to use alcohol for manufacturing soft drinks would give the holder the right to acquire it by manufacturing it himself, or by buying it from a bootlegger. His permit would not protect him in his possession, if his liquor were so acquired. The Regulations also provide (section 403) that permits to purchase will be issued only to cover kinds and quantities of liquor which are covered by the basic permit of the applicant. Under this basic permit, as construed in connection with the application, the amount of alcohol which the respondent could legally have on hand at any one time was 250 wine gallons, or about 5 barrels. The quantity found was 18 barrels.

...