United States v. 385 Barrels, of Wine
| Decision Date | 05 June 1924 |
| Citation | 300 F. 565 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. 385 BARRELS, etc., OF WINE. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
William Hayward, U.S. Atty., and Francis A. McGurk, Asst. U.S. Atty both of New York City, for libelant.
Charles F. Murphy, of New York City, for claimants.
The libel contains three causes of action: First, for forfeiture under the provisions of the Volstead Act (Comp. St. Ann Supp. 1923, Sec. 10138 1/4 et seq.); second, for forfeiture under the provisions of section 3450 of the Revised Statutes (Comp. St. Sec. 6352); third, for forfeiture under the provisions of section 3453 of the Revised Statutes (Comp. St Sec. 6355).
The claimants except to the first cause of action on the ground that the libel fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of forfeiture. Their contention is that the allegation of the libel to the effect that the intoxicating liquors 'were at the time and place aforesaid used and intended for use in the manufacture, sale, barter, etc., of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes,' does not state facts, but merely contains a legal conclusion. This is too technical a treatment of a pleading in a civil suit. The decision of Judge Ervin in United States v. Horton (D.C.) 282 F. 731, related to a criminal prosecution. Here the words of the statute are substantially followed, and while the libel does not state who had or possessed the liquor, it is alleged that the offending thing was 'used and intended for use in the manufacture, sale, * * * for beverage purposes,' in violation of the Act. Any further information that may be held necessary may be applied for by motion for a bill of particulars.
The exceptions to the second cause of action are:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commercial Credit Co. v. United States
...Md.) 291 F. 138; U. S. v. One Ford Auto, Commercial Cr. Co., Intervener (D. C. Tenn.) ___ F.(2d) ___, not yet reported. U. S. v. 385 Bbls., etc. (D. C. N. Y.) 300 F. 565. 2 It might be said that since the petition charges only an intent to defraud out of the $4.20 tax, and since such tax ca......
-
United States v. Various Items of Personal Property
...indicate that the rule is not different when the conviction is under the National Prohibition Act (27 USCA). United States v. 385 Barrels of Wine, 300 F. 565 (D. C. S. D. N. Y.); United States v. One Ice Box, supra. See Murphy v. United States, 38 F. (2d) 441 (C. C. A. Judgment affirmed. ...
-
Feitler v. United States
...USCA § 39). As this is a pleading not in a criminal action but in a civil suit, it is, we think, good under authority of United States v. 385 Barrels of Wine, 300 F. 565, if any authority be needed in view of the clear averments of the unlawful possession and intended use of the property, a......
-
United States v. One Bay State Roadster
...United States v. One Studebaker Automobile (D. C.) 298 F. 191. In connection with the general subject-matter see United States v. 385 Barrels, etc., of Wine (D. C.) 300 F. 565, and United States v. One Buick Automobile (D. C.) 300 F. 584. In the latter case it was held "The provisions of Re......