United States v. Gibson

Decision Date08 June 1891
Citation47 F. 833
PartiesUNITED STATES v. GIBSON.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

At Law. Decision on motion to quash indictment.

Criminal Law 95

T. E Milchrist, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the United States.

George Burry, for defendant.

BLODGETT J.

I will now dispose of this motion to quash in the case of the United States v. Gibson. This case is now before the court on a motion to quash the indictment. The indictment contains five counts, all of which, in substance, charge the defendant with offering one De War a bribe or valuable consideration in money or property to induce De War to set fire to a distillery in the city of Chicago, in this district, used and occupied by H.H. Schufeldt & Co., he (De War) being at the time such offer was made to him an internal revenue officer of this collection district, and in some of the counts describing De War as an internal revenue gauger, and assigned for duty in this district, and having, as such officer, a right to enter such distillery in the day or night time. The indictment is framed to bring the offense charged within the scope of section 5451 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, which reads as follows:

'Sec 5451. Every person who promises, offers, or gives, or causes or procures to be promised, offered, or given, any money or other thing of value, or makes or tenders any contract undertaking, obligation, gratutity, or security for the payment of money, or for the delivery or conveyance of anything of value, to any officer of the United States, or to any person acting for or on behalf of the United States in any official function, under or by authority of any department or office of the government thereof, or to any officer or person acting for or on behalf of either house of congress, or of any committee of either on any question matter, cause, or proceeding which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before him in his official capacity, or in his place of trust or profit, or with intent to influence him to commit, or aid in committing, or to collude in or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud on the United States, or to induce him to do or omit to do any act in violation of his lawful duty, shall be punished as prescribed in the preceding section.'

Another section of the Revised Statutes makes it a criminal offense for any public officer of the United States to accept a bribe to influence his action in his official capacity; and section 3177 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, and others bearing upon the same subject, give any internal revenue officer the right to enter nay building or place when open, either by day or night, where articles subject to internal revenue tax are produced,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • The State v. Butler
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 9 Diciembre 1903
    ... ... 352; Newman v. State, 97 Ga ... 367; Gunning v. People, 59 N.E. 494; United ... States v. Boyer, 85 F. 425. The ordinance pleaded in the ... indictment does not show that ... statute ... In United States v. Gibson, 47 F ... 833, it was held not to be a crime to offer a bribe to an ... internal revenue ... ...
  • U.S. v. Morlang
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • 30 Diciembre 1975
    ...although arguable it may subject the actor to civil liabilities. Cf. United States v. Boyer, 85 F. 425 (W.D.Mo.1898); United States v. Gibson, 47 F. 833 (N.D.Ill.1891). The government calls to our attention that no objection was made at the trial on account of the jury charge based on the r......
  • U.S. v. Gjieli
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 21 Septiembre 1983
    ...the broad scope of earlier bribery statutes "as construed by the courts." The 1878 bribery statute was construed in United States v. Gibson, 47 F. 833 (N.D.Ill.1891). The defendant in that case was charged with offering an internal revenue officer money to set fire to a distillery. The offi......
  • State v. Laflame
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • 14 Mayo 1915
    ...Rep. 515, 8 S.W. 652; Re Yee Gee, 83 F. 145; State v. Butler, 178 Mo. 272, 77 S.W. 560; United States v. Boyer, 85 F. 425; United States v. Gibson, 47 F. 833. J. Linde, Attorney General, and Geo. P. Homnes, State's Attorney, for respondent. A public officer is defined, "as the right, author......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT