United States v. Buchanan

• Decision Date: 01 January 1881
• Citation: 9 F. 689
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. BUCHANAN.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

9 F. 689

UNITED STATES v. BUCHANAN.

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina.

November Term, 1881

James E. Boyd, Dist. Atty., for the United States.

J. W Bowman and J. W. McElroy, for defendant.

This was an indictment, under section 3324 of the Revised Statutes, for a failure to efface a stamp from an empty cask which had contained distilled spirits. The defendant was a duly-licensed retail dealer of distilled spirits.

The business was carried on in a small room in his dwelling, and was under the exclusive control of his wife. She kept the key of the room, and never allowed her husband, who was an intemperate man, to enter except when she was present. A deputy collector, while on a visit of inspection, discovered a cask which was duly stamped and had contained distilled spirits. The witnesses for the prosecution stated that the cask was entirely empty. Witnesses on the part of the defence stated that the cask was entirely empty, but still contained about a pint or quart of spirits. The witnesses for the prosecution also stated that the wife of defendant was present at the time of inspection, and admitted that the cask was empty. The witnesses for the defence stated that the wife said, at the time, that she had emptied the cask that day as far as she could by the faucet, and had turned the cask up on the head so that she might procure assistance to draw off the entire contents through the bung-hole. The defendant was not present, and never had anything to do with carrying on the business except permitting the use of his house and allowing his name in procuring the license.

DICK D. J.

(charging jury.) It is conceded that the stamp on the cask was not effaced and obliterated as required by law. The only controverted question of fact which you have to determine is was the cask empty when discovered by the deputy collector? The affirmative allegation is made in the indictment, and is material in constituting the offence charged; and, before a conviction can properly be had, you must be satisfied from all the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the allegation is true.

As the statute upon which this indictment is founded is highly penal, a general rule of construction requires that it shall be strictly construed, and not extended by implication. The words in a statute, if of common use, are to be taken in their natural, plain, obvious, and ordinary meaning. The offence charged in this case is a failure to efface and obliterate a stamp 'at the time of emptying such cask,' etc. You will consider what is meant by the words 'emptying such cask.' The ordinary signification of the verb 'to empty' is to 'make void;' 'to exhaust;' 'to deprive of the contents.' If this ordinary signification of the word used in the statute is adopted, the defendant cannot be convicted unless the evidence shows that the cask was completely deprived of its contents-- not a pint left. I am not disposed to adopt this strict literal construction, as there is another important rule in the construction of statutes which must be observed. We must consider the object and spirit of the statute, and try to ascertain, from the language of the whole and every part of the statute, what was the intent and purpose of the legislature in making the statute. The intent of the legislature may be found in the statute itself and from other statutes in pari materia; and also by considering the probable effects and consequences that would result from a strict literal construction. When ascertained, this intent should be followed with reason and discretion, though ascertained, this intent should be followed with reason and discretion, though such construction may seem contrary to the letter of the statute; for it is the intent which...