United States v. Two Gallons of Whisky

• Decision Date: 16 May 1914
• Docket Number: 157.
• Citation: 213 F. 986
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. TWO GALLONS OF WHISKY et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Montana

213 F. 986

UNITED STATES v. TWO GALLONS OF WHISKY et al.

No. 157.

United States District Court, D. Montana.

May 16, 1914

Burton K. Wheeler, U.S. Atty., of Butte, Mont., and S. C. Ford Asst. U.S. Atty., of Helena, Mont.

Edward C. Mulroney and Thos. N. Marlowe, both of Missoula, Mont for claimants.

BOURQUIN District Judge.

Information under section 2140, R.S., for the forfeiture of whisky, and of the horses, harness, and wagon with which it was introduced into the Indian country where seized by officers of the libelant.

From the pleadings and concessions of the parties it appears that the whisky was the property of one Eneas Grandjo, one horse was the property of James Matt, the harness was the property of Matt's father, and one horse and the wagon were the property of Matt's mother. Matt is 16 years of age, and lives with his parents in the Indian country. He and his mother are Indian wards of the government. The parents permitted Matt to take the team, harness, and wagon to drive to the post office at Arlee within the Indian country. He made the drive, and then drove to Missoula without the Indian country, with Grandjo as a passenger and on the latter's persuasion. There Grandjo purchased the whisky. He procured Matt to transport it and him back into the Indian country and there the seizure was made. Matt's parents authorized him to drive to Arlee only, and had no knowledge of and did not sanction his drive to and from Missoula, or his acts in connection therewith.

The introduction of intoxicating liquor into the Indian country is prohibited and a felony by statute. Section 2140, supra, provides that if officers of the United States have reason to suspect or are informed that any white person or Indian has introduced any spirituous liquor into the Indian country, they may cause the conveyances and depositories 'of such person to be searched; and if any such liquor is found therein, the same, together with' such conveyances 'used in conveying the same, and also the goods, packages and peltries of such person, shall be seized,' libeled, and forfeited to the informer and the United States. It is clear the whisky is forfeited regardless of ownership and introducer. It is equally clear that James Matt, as well as Grandjo, introduced the whisky into the Indian country, and, though a minor and an Indian ward of the government, he is responsible and liable for his violation of the law, and is subject to the forfeiture imposed by the statute. But does the statute impose forfeiture of the property of Matt's parents?

It may be observed that Matt's conduct in using the property for purposes other than his parents authorized was a fraud upon them and a conversion of the property. This is no barrier to forfeiture if the statute imposes it. The statute is highly penal, and is not in aider of the revenues. Hence it must be strictly construed, doubts resolved in favor of those against whom it is invoked, no person or case held...