United States v. Braun & Fitts

• Decision Date: 30 December 1907
• Citation: 158 F. 456
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. BRAUN & FITTS.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

158 F. 456

UNITED STATES v. BRAUN & FITTS.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey.

December 30, 1907

Walter H. Bacon, Asst. Dist. Atty.

William H. Speer and J. Merritt Lane, for defendant.

LANNING District Judge.

The defendant is a corporation of the state of Illinois, and has been convicted by a jury upon an indictment founded on section 6 of the Oleomargarine Act of May 9, 1902, c. 784, 32 Stat. 197 (U.S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 641), which is as follows:

'That wholesale dealers in oleomargarine * * * shall keep such books and render such returns in relation thereto as the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, may, by regulation, require; and such books shall be open at all times to the inspection of any internal revenue officer or agent. And any person who willfully violates any of the provisions of this section shall for each such offense be fined not less than fifty dollars and not exceeding five hundred dollars, and imprisoned not less than thirty days nor more than six months.'

At the trial the defendant offered no evidence, and asked for a direction to the jury that it render a verdict of 'not guilty' on the ground that the section above quoted is not applicable to a corporation. The request was denied, but with an intimation that, in the event of a conviction by the jury, the court would hear argument on the question upon a motion to set aside the verdict and quash the indictment. Such an argument has now been heard.

The point urged in behalf of the defendant is that the section provides for the punishment only of any 'person' who 'willfully violates' any of its provisions, and that the punishment must be both fine and imprisonment. The provision of section 5 of the act is referred to as giving force to the argument. The concluding words of that section are:

'Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this section, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not less than fifty dollars nor more than five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment not less than one month nor more than six months, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.'

Section 5 applies, in express terms, to corporations, and gives the court discretionary power to punish either by fine or imprisonment, or both. Since a corporation cannot be imprisoned, may the court, under section 6, disregard so much of that section as prescribes punishment by imprisonment and punish only by fine? One may not easily discover a reason for including corporations in the provisions of section 5 and excluding them from the provisions of section 6. Each of the sections must be read, however, in the light of the ordinary rules of construction. One of those rules is that, in a criminal case in the courts of the United States, the judgment must conform strictly to the statute. In the Karstendick Case, 93 U.S. 396, 399, 23 L.Ed. 889, Mr. Chief Justice Waite, in applying that rule, declares that 'in cases where the statute makes hard labor a part of the punishment, it is imperative ...