United States v. Mincey
| Decision Date | 08 November 1918 |
| Docket Number | 3162. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. MINCEY. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Hooper Alexander, U.S. Atty., of Atlanta, Ga.
Before WALKER and BATTS, Circuit Judges, and SHEPPARD, District Judge.
This was a proceeding for the forfeiture of one Ford automobile on the alleged ground that, before its seizure, it was by one W. F. Mincey used in the removal and for the deposit and concealment of 25 gallons of distilled spirits, with intent to defraud the United States of the tax thereon, which had not been paid. James M. Mincey interposed a claim to the automobile.
In the trial it was conceded that the automobile had been used, as charged, in violation of law, and for the purpose alleged. The evidence for the claimant tended to prove that the automobile was the property of the claimant, who was a farmer and merchant living in Dawson county, Ga.; that W. F. Mincey was in the employment of the claimant, and that on the day in question the claimant had sent W. F. Mincey in said automobile to the town of Gainesville, in Hall county, Ga with instructions there to procure certain hardware and other lawful merchandise; and that claimant had no knowledge of the fact that W. F. Mincey would use the automobile for any other purpose, and had no reason to apprehend that W. F. Mincey had the purpose of defrauding the United States, or would use the automobile for that purpose.
Exceptions were duly reserved to instructions of the court to the jury to the effect that the automobile was not subject to forfeiture if it was used for the illegal purpose charged without the claimant's consent, and without reason on his part to apprehend that it would be used for an improper purpose.
The proceeding is based upon the following statute:
'Whenever any goods or commodities for or in respect whereof any tax is or shall be imposed, or any materials, utensils, or vessels, proper or intended to be made use of for or in the making of such goods or commodities are removed, or are deposited or concealed in any place, with intent to defraud the United States of such tax, or any part thereof, all such goods and commodities, and all such materials, utensils, and vessels, respectively, shall be forfeited; and in every such case all the casks, vessels, cases, or other packages whatsoever, * * * respectively and every vessel, boat, cart, carriage, or other conveyance whatsoever, and all horses or other animals, and all things used in the removal or for the deposit or concealment thereof, respectively, shall be forfeited. ' R.S.U.S. Sec. 3450 (Comp. St. 1916, Sec. 6352).
Nothing in the terms of this statute indicates an intention to make the right to a forfeiture dependent upon the property being owned by the person guilty of a specified unlawful use of it or upon the fact that the owner of the property shared in the guilt of the unlawful user of it. It has been authoritatively decided that under similar statu...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Van Oster v. State of Kansas
...States, 96 U. S. 395, 24 L. Ed. 637; United States v. Stowell, 133 U. S. 1, 10 S. Ct. 244, 33 L. Ed. 555; United States v. Mincey, 254 F. 287, 165 C. C. A. 575, 5 A. L. R. 211; Logan v. United States, 260 F. 746, 171 C. C. A. 484; United States v. One Saxon Automobile, 257 F. 251, 168 C. C.......
-
Commercial Credit Co. v. State, Case Number: 20711
...F. 253:"Discussion of the principles of law found in U.S. v. Stowell, 133 U.S. 1, 10 S. Ct. 244, 33 L. Ed. 555, U.S. v. Mincey, 254 F. 287, 165 C. C. A. 575, 5 A. L. R. 211, Logan v. U. S., 260 F. 746, 171 C.C.A. 484, U.S. v. One Saxon Automobile, 257 F. 251, 168 C.C.A. 335, and similar cas......
-
National Bond & Investment Co. v. Gibson
...principle was declared in United States v. Stowell, 133 U. S. 1. The following cases at circuit may also be referred to: United States v. Mincey, 254 F. 287 (1918); Logan v. United States, 260 F. 746 (1919); United States v. One Saxon Automobile, 257 F. 251; United States v. 246½ Pounds of ......
-
THE PILOT
...on this point has been definitely settled. United States v. One Saxon Automobile et al. (C. C. A.) 257 F. 251; United States v. Mincey (C. C. A.) 254 F. 287, 5 A. L. R. 211; Logan v. United States (C. C. A.) 260 F. 746; United States v. One Black Horse (D. C.) 129 F. 167; The Esther M. Rend......