US v. Three Thousand Two Hundred Thirty-Six Dollars, Civ. No. A-14135.
Decision Date | 21 November 1958 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. A-14135. |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Libelant, v. THREE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED THIRTY-SIX DOLLARS ($3,236) and All Persons Interested Therein, Respondents. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Alaska |
U. S. Atty., Anchorage, Alaska, for libelant.
Hellenthal & Cottis, Anchorage, Alaska, for respondents.
This case arose when the United States filed a libel of forfeiture against $3,236, allegedly the bank in an unlawful gambling game. Certain parties claimed the defendant money and opposed the libel by the United States.
The stipulated facts were as follows:
The case was submitted on briefs and the following issues are before the court for decision:
1. Is United States currency and coin seized during a raid on a prohibited gambling game an implement of gambling and subject to forfeiture under the wording of Section 4-2-1 A.C.L.A. 1949?
Section 4-2-1 A.C.L.A.1949. "* * and all gambling implements shall be seized by the United States marshal or any of his deputies, or any constable or police officer, and destroyed; * * *"
2. Does the Alaska statute of limitations pertaining to forfeitures, Section 55-2-7 A.C.L.A.1949, bar the libelant United States from subjecting the respondents' $3,236.00 to forfeiture?
Section 55-2-7 A.C.L.A.1949. * * *"
I find that the question of whether Section 4-2-1, supra, allows forfeiture of United States currency and coin seized in a raid on a prohibited gambling game has never been decided by the courts in Alaska. Therefore, it is necessary to study the statutes and case law in other jurisdictions in order to find an answer consistent with acceptable principles of reason and justice.
The case law on money as a gambling implement is in conflict. The following decisions are typical of those which hold that money is not an implement of gambling under any circumstances:
Money and diamond rings mixed with cards and chips in a safe were held not to be implements of gambling. In accord Rader v. Simmons, 264 App.Div. 415, 1942, 35 N.Y.S.2d 573.
The following cases are typical of the majority rule which holds that money, if it is an integral part of the gambling operation, is subject to forfeiture: Rosen v. Superintendent of Police, 120 Pa. Super. 59, 1935, 181 A. 797, Commonwealth v. Blythe, 178 Pa.Super. 575, 1955, 115 A.2d 906, Kenny v. Wachenfeld, 14 N.J.Misc. 322, 1936, 184 A. 737, People v. Wrest, 345 Ill.App. 186, 1952, 103 N.E.2d 171, Gilley v. Commonwealth, 312 Ky. 584, 1950, 229 S.W.2d 60, 19 A.L.R.2d 1224.
In the following cases the factual situation was similar to that in the present case and the money seized was held to be an integral part of the gambling operation:
Schuettler v. Maurer, 159 Pa.Super. 110, 1946, 46 A.2d 586. In this case the money in question was found in a pocket of a coat belonging to a participant in the game but hanging on a hook on the wall. Commonwealth v. Deavenport, 158 Pa.Super....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mayo v. United States, Civ. No. 74-251-E.
...There is also no evidence that a forfeiture hearing was held prior to destruction. See United States v. Three Thousand Two Hundred Thirty-Six Dollars, 167 F.Supp. 495 (D.Alaska 1958). Before proceeding to the central issue presented by this case, it is necessary to dispose of two preliminar......
-
Mayo v. United States
...that the object was used in a prohibited manner which would subject it to forfeiture. See United States v. Three Thousand Two Hundred Thirty-Six Dollars, 167 F.Supp. 495 (D.Alaska 1958). Defendant has presented no evidence to show that the printing press was clearly used to print counterfei......
-
Shannon v. BROWN AND WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP., 1607.
... ... has expressed its views in at least three instances since the decision of the United States ... ...
-
State v. Petty, 20600
...Forfeitures and Penalties, § 17 (1968). It is an in rem proceeding against the property itself. U. S. v. Three Thousand Two Hundred Thirty-Six Dollars, 167 F.Supp. 495 (D.Alaska 1958); 36 Am.Jur.2d supra. Being civil in nature, it is only necessary that the State prove its case by a prepond......