United States v. Southern Pac. Co.

• Citation: 162 F. 412
• Decision Date: 13 March 1908
• Docket Number: 1,675,1,670-1,672,1,687.,1,684,1,674
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. SOUTHERN PAC. CO. (seven cases).

162 F. 412

UNITED STATES v. SOUTHERN PAC. CO. (seven cases).

Nos. 1,670-1,672, 1,674, 1,675, 1,684, 1,687.

United States District Court, N.D. California.

March 13, 1908

A. P Black, Asst. U.S. Dist. Atty.

Knight & Heggerty, for defendant.

DE HAVEN, District Judge.

These actions were brought by the United States against the Southern Pacific Company to recover penalties alleged to have been incurred by the defendant under the provisions of Act Cong. June 29, 1906, c. 3594, 34 Stat. 607 (U.S. Comp. St Supp. 1907, p. 918), entitled 'an act to prevent cruelty to animals while in transit by railroad or other means of transportation from one state or territory or the District of Columbia into or through another state or territory or the District of Columbia,' etc ., and were by order of the court consolidated and tried together.

The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in each of the cases, and the defendant has moved for a new trial.

1. It is claimed that the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury, as requested by the defendant, that the government was required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and in giving to the jury the following instruction:

'You are further charged, gentlemen, that the burden of proof in each one of these cases is upon the government, and that it is required to prove the acts constituting the violation of the statute by a preponderance of evidence; that is to say the government is not required to prove its allegations beyond all reasonable doubt, but simply by a preponderance of evidence, and by a 'preponderance of evidence' is meant that evidence which, after a consideration of all the evidence, is in the judgment of the jurors entitled to the greatest weight.'

An action of debt to recover a penalty given by a statute is a civil action. 1 Bishop on Criminal Law (3d Ed.) Sec. 32; Jacob v. United States, 1 Brock. 520, Fed. Cas. No. 7,157; Stockwell v. United States, 13 Wall. 531, 20 L.Ed. 491; United States v. Elliot, Fed. Cas. No. 15,043. But, independently of the general rule stated in the cases just cited, section 4 of the act of Congress above referred to provides that the penalty prescribed by the statute for a failure to comply with its provisions 'shall be recovered by civil action in the name of the United States. ' The actions, then, being classed as 'civil actions,' the court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury, as requested by the defendant, that the burden was imposed upon the government to prove the alleged violations of the statute beyond all reasonable doubt, and in giving the instruction above quoted. Lilienthal's Tobacco Co. v. United States, 97 U.S. 237, 271, 272, 24 L.Ed. 901; United States v. Brown, Deady, 566, Fed. Cas. No. 14,662; The Good Templar (D.C.) 97 F. 651; Roberge v. Burnham, 124 Mass. 277.

There are cases in which the contrary has been held, but in my opinion they do not state the true rule. In section 29 of Greenleaf on Evidence, it is said:

'A distinction is to be noted between civil and criminal cases in respect to the degree or quantity of evidence necessary to justify the jury in finding their verdict for the government. In civil cases their duty is to weigh the evidence carefully and to find for the party in whose favor the evidence preponderates, although it be not free from reasonable doubt. But in a criminal trial the party accused is entitled to the benefit of the legal presumption in favor of innocence, which in doubtful cases is always sufficient to turn the scale in his favor. It is, therefore, a rule of criminal law that the guilt of the accused must be fully proved.'

The rule of evidence in relation to the degree of proof required of the government in the prosecution of persons charged with crime is based upon the tender regard which the law has for the right of the accused to be protected from unjust judgments which may affect his life or liberty; these...