United States v. Four Hundred and Twenty Dollars
| Decision Date | 13 June 1908 |
| Docket Number | 1,188. |
| Citation | 162 F. 803 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. FOUR HUNDRED AND TWENTY DOLLARS. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama |
Wm. H Armbrecht, U.S. Atty.
Pillans Hanaw & Pillans, for claimant.
This is a libel of information against $420 as penalties claimed for an alleged violation, by the master of the Spanish bark Carvajal, of Act Feb. 20, 1907, to regulate the immigration of aliens into the United States. 34 Stat. 898, c. 1134 (U.S Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 389). The libel, in substance alleges that upon the arrival of said bark Carvajal in the port of Mobile the master thereof delivered to the acting immigrant inspector at said port a paper purporting to be a list or manifest of the aliens brought in on said bark, which contained the names of said aliens and contained what purported to be the information required by the provisions of said act, and that said manifest was verified by the affidavit of the said master, as required by said act. The libel further alleges that the said manifest was not correct, in that the said master, in answer to the question asked in said manifest concerning each of said aliens, 'By whom was passage paid?' said, 'By himself' (the alien), which answer was not true; that in truth and in fact the passage of said aliens, and each of them, was paid by some other person; and that at the time said master furnished said manifest to the immigration officer he well knew, or had reason to believe, that said answer was untrue, and the information thereby given was incorrect. The libel charges that the furnishing of said incorrect manifest was not a bona fide compliance with said immigration act, 'and was equivalent to furnishing no manifest whatever. ' There were 42 aliens reported on the manifest. A penalty of $10 being demanded for each of said 42 aliens, the aggregate sum of $420 has been deposited to stand in lieu of said vessel, to be disposed of and paid as, upon the hearing of the cause, the court may then adjudge. The prayer of the libel is that the said sum of $420 may, for the causes shown, be condemned to the use of and to be paid over to the United States. The master of the vessel intervenes, and claims said sum of $420, and excepts to the bill of information as insufficient in law, and shows no right in the United States to said money or any part thereof because the libel affirmatively shows that said master did not neglect or omit to deliver the list or manifest required by the immigration act, but did deliver the same containing the information required by said act; and said master further excepts to said libel and says that the fact, as alleged in the libel, that the manifest furnished was not correct, gives no right to the United States to collect the penalty sought to be enforced in this action.
Wherefore he says he is not bound to further answer said libel, and prays that the same be dismissed and that the said sum of money be returned to him.
The immigration act provides that it shall be the duty of the master of a vessel having aliens on board to deliver to the immigration officers at the port of arrival lists or manifests made at the time and place of embarkation of such aliens on board such vessel, which shall, in answer to questions at the top of said lists, state certain things required as information. Among other questions contained in the lists is this:
'Whether the alien has paid his own passage, or whether it has been paid by any other person, * * * and, if so, by whom.'
The lists or manifests are required by the act to be signed and sworn to by the master that, 'according to the best of his knowledge and belief, the information in said lists or manifests concerning each of said aliens named therein is correct and true in every respect. ' Immigration Act, c 1134, Secs. 12, 13, 34 Stat. 901, 902 (U.S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 397, 398). It is further provided in section 15 of said act that, in case of the failure of the master of any vessel to deliver to the said immigration...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Finley
..."penalty" denotes money recoverable by virtue of a statute imposing a payment by way of punishment. (United States v. Four Hundred And Twenty Dollars, 162 F. 803, 805 [S.D.Ala.1908], citing Black's Law The provisions of K.S.A. 8-760a provide for an additional payment of $25 to the Motor Veh......
-
Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. Rogers
...45. 2. Plaintiff was not entitled to a judgment for the penalty against the Director General or the corporation. 216 S.W. 3; 92 S.W. 191; 162 F. 803; 90 N.Y. 762; 72 Vt. 55; 78 Kan. The allegations of the complaint are not sufficient to authorize a judgment for the penalty. Act 61, Acts 190......
-
United States v. Curran, 49.
...v. United States, 242 U. S. 470, 37 S. Ct. 192, 61 L. Ed. 442, L. R. A. 1917F, 502, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 1168; United States v. Four Hundred and Twenty Dollars (D. C.) 162 F. 803. We are not permitted to read into the act an exemption which is not there. Commissioner of Immigration v. Gottlieb,......
-
Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. United States
... ... sum of one hundred dollars for each and every day it shall ... continue to be in default ... report. United States v. Four Hundred Twenty Dollars ... (D.C.) 162 F. 803, 804; Bonnell v. Griswold, ... ...