FALSE PERSONATION. R. S. 5435. False Personation of Holder of Public Stocks, 92. 5448. Falsely Assuming to Be a Revenue Officer, 92. Act of April 18, 1884, ch. 26, 92. Falsely Pretending to Be United States Officer with Intent to Defraud, CROSS-REFERENCES. In Procuring Naturalization, see NATURALIZATION. Sec. 5435. [False personation of holder of public stocks.] Every person who falsely personates any true and lawful holder of any share or sum in the public stocks or debt of the United States, or any person entitled to any annuity, dividend, pension, prize-money, wages, or other debt due from the United States, and, under color of such false personation, transfers or endeavors to transfer such public stock or any part thereof, or receives or endeavors to receive the money of such true and lawful holder thereof, or the money of any person really entitled to receive such annuity, dividend, pension, prize-money, wages, or other debt, shall be punished by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars, and by imprisonment at hard labor not more than ten years. [R. S.] Act of March 3, 1825, ch. 65, 4 Stat. L. 120. Sec. 5448. [Falsely assuming to be a revenue officer.] Every person who falsely represents himself to be a revenue officer, and, in such assumed character, demands or receives any money or other article of value from any person for any duty or tax due to the United States, or for any violation or pretended violation of any revenue law of the United States, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and shall be fined five hundred dollars, and imprisoned not less than six months and not more than two years. Act of March 2, 1867, ch. 169, 14 Stat. L. 484. Indictment sufficient. The first count of an indictment charged that the defendants, unlawfully and feloniously, falsely represented themselves to be revenue officers of the United States, and in such assumed character demanded and received certain money, to wit, $200, of one A. I., for the pretended violation by the said A. I. of a revenue law of the United States, that is to say, of section 8 of an Act of Congress concerning internal [R. S.] revenue taxation, approved June 13, 1898, as amended, in the respect of knowingly and wilfully buying washed revenue stamps. The second count was like the first, except that it charged that the defendants had in possession washed and restored revenue stamps knowingly and without lawful excuse, these two counts being laid under this section. They were held to be technically sufficient to charge the offense. U. S. v. Brown, (1902) 119 Fed. Rep. 482. An act making it a felony for a person to falsely and fraudulently assume or pretend to be an officer or employee acting under authority of the United States or any Department or any officer thereof, and prescribing a penalty therefor. [Act of April 18, 1884, ch. 26, 23 Stat. L. 11.] [Falsely pretending to be United States officer with intent to defraud, how punished.] That every person who, with intent to defraud either the United States or any person, falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States, or any Department, or any officer of the Government thereof, and who shall take upon himself to act as such, or who shall in such pretended character demand or obtain from any person or from the United States, or any Department, or any officer of the Government thereof, any money, paper, document, or other valuable thing, shall be deemed guilty of felony, and shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or imprisonment not longer than three years, or both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. [23 Stat. L. 11.] See, for sufficiency of indictment under this Act, U. S. v. Brown, (1902) 119 Fed. Rep. 482. FALSE SWEARING. See PERJURY. FEES. For fees of various officials, jurors, witnesses, etc., consult the General Index. FERMENTED LIQUORS. See CUSTOMS DUTIES; INTERNAL REVENUE. FERRYBOATS. See COLLISIONS; STEAM VESSELS. FILLED CHEESE. See FOOD AND DRUGS. FINDINGS. See JUDICIARY, FINES, PENALTIES, AND FORFEITURES. R. S. 732. Suits for Pecuniary Penalties and Forfeitures, Where to Be Brought. 94. 734. Proceedings on Seizures, Where Cognizable, 95. 909. Burden of Proof, When It Lies on Claimant in Seizure Cases, 95. 939. Sale After Condemnation, 98. 940. In Cases of Seizure, Bailing of Property in Vacation, 98. 1041. Fudgments for Fines, How Collected, 98. 1042. Poor Convicts Sentenced and Imprisoned for Fines, 99. 1047. Limitation of Suit or Prosecution for Penalties and Forfeitures under Laws of United States, 100. 5292. Mitigation or Remission upon Summary Investigation Before District Fudge, 101. 5293. Remission upon Investigation under Regulations of Secretary of Treasury, 103. 5294. Remission or Mitigation of Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures under Laws Relating to Vessels-Informers' Rights, 104. 5295. Officers and Informers May Be Witnesses, 106. 5296. Discharge of Indigent Convicts, 106. Act of June 26, 1884, ch. 121, 106. Sec. 26. Refund or Remission of Fines, etc., Illegally Assessed under Laws Relating to Vessels or Seamen, 106. Act of Fune 22, 1874, ch. 391, 107. Sec. 6. Customs-Revenue Law. Payment to Informers, 107. 7. Officer Receiving Part of Informer's Fees - Action to Recover Money So Paid, 108. CROSS-REFERENCES. For Particular Offenses, Defaults, or Omissions, consult the General Index. Costs in Suits for Recovery, see COSTS. Sec. 732. [Suits for pecuniary penalties and forfeitures, where to be brought.] All pecuniary penalties and forfeitures may be sued for and recovered either in the district where they accrue or in the district where the offender is found. [R. S.] Act of Feb. 28, 1839, ch. 36, 5 Stat. L. 322; Act of June 30, 1864, ch. 173, 13 Stat. L. 239, 305; Act of July 13, 1866, ch. 184, 14 Stat. L. 111, 145. This section is a general Act applicable to a multitude of penalties and forfeitures concerning which there is no other provision in regard to the place where the suit may be brought. But when, as in section 4901, R. S., the statute prescribing a penalty for a stated offense provides that the penalty shall "be recovered by suit in any district court of the United States within whose jurisdiction such offenses may have been committed," such a provision is mandatory, and the remedy must be sought in the precise mode and subject to the precise limitations provided by the Act which creates the offense. Pentlarge v. Kirby, (1884) 19 Fed. Rep. 501. See also Hat-Sweat Mfg. Co. v. Davis Sewing-Mach. Co., (1887) 31 Fed. Rep. 294. An action to recover a penalty for the importation of a foreign laborer in violation of the Act of Congress of Feb. 26, 1885, may be brought in the district into which the alien laborer may enter or in the district in which the defendant be " found." U. S. v. Craig, (1886) 28 Fed. Rep. 795. See also Lees v. U. S., (1893) 150 U. S. 476. Sec. 734. [Proceedings on seizures, where cognizable.] Proceedings on seizures, for forfeiture under any law of the United States, made on the high seas may be prosecuted in any district into which the property so seized is brought and proceedings instituted. Proceedings on such seizures made within any district shall be prosecuted in the district where the seizure is made, except in cases where it is otherwise provided. [R. S.] Act of Sept. 24, 1789, ch. 20, 1 Stat. L. 76; Act of July 13, 1861, ch. 3, 12 Stat. L. 256, 257, 258; Act of Aug. 6, 1861, ch. 60, 12 Stat. L. 319; Act of June 30, 1864, ch. 173, 13 Stat. L. 240; Act of July 13, 1866, ch. 184, 14 Stat. L. 111; Act of March 2, 1867, ch. 169, 14 Stat. L. 483. The District Court has exclusive jurisdiction of actions to recover penalties and forfeitures that have accrued to the United States. U. S. v. The Helena, (1850) 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15,341. See also The Ship Richmond v. U. S., (1815) 9 Cranch (U. S.) 102; Keene v. U. S., (1809) 5 Cranch (U. S.) 304; Evans . Bollen, (1800) 4 Dall. (U. S.) 342; Ketland v. The Cassius, (1796) 2 Dall. (Pa.) 365; U. S. v. Bougher, (1854) 6 McLean (U. S.) 277; Hall v. Warren, (1840) 2 McLean (U. S.) 332; Burke v. Trevitt, (1816) 1 Mason (U. S.) 96. This statute gives exclusive jurisdiction of all seizures made within any district to the District Court of such district. Concurrent jurisdiction exists in the district courts of other districts only where the seizure is on the high seas. The Sloop Abby, (1818) 1 Mason (U. S.) 360. See also The Brig Little Ann, (1810) 1 Paine (U. S.) 40; The Slavers, (1864) 2 Wall. (U. S.) 383; The Merino, (1824) 9 Wheat. (U. S.) 391; Gedney v. L'Amistad, (1840) 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,294a. A state court has no legal authority to entertain a question of forfeiture arising under the laws of the United States, and any intervention of a state authority which, by taking the thing seized out of the possession of the officer of the United States, might obstruct the exercise of this jurisdiction, would unquestionably be unlawful, and the federal court having cognizance of the seizure might enforce a redelivery of the thing by attachment or other summary process against the parties who should divest such possession. Slocum v. Mayberry, (1817) 2 Wheat. (U. S.) 1. The seizure being a jurisdictional fact, necessary to give to the District Court cognizance of the cause, advantage may be taken at any stage of the proceedings of the absence of an averment in the libel. The Washington, (1857) 4 Blatchf. (U. S.) 101. Executive seizures are "for forfeiture under any law of the United States." The Steamboat Joshua Leviness, (1878) 9 Ben. (U. S.) 339. If a seizure be completely and explicitly abandoned, and the property restored by the voluntary act of the party who has made the seizure, the District Court has no jurisdiction. The Brig Ann, (1815) 9 Cranch (U. S.) 289. Sec. 909. [Burden of proof, when it lies on claimant in seizure cases.] In suits or informations brought, where any seizure is made pursuant to any act providing for or regulating the collection of duties on imports or tonnage, if the. property is claimed by any person, the burden of proof shall lie upon such claimant: Provided, That probable cause is shown for such prosecution, to be judged of by the court. [R. S.] Act of March 2, 1799, ch. 22, 1 Stat. L. 678. The term “probable cause" does not mean prima facie evidence, or such evidence as, in the absence of exculpatory proof, would justify condemnation, as this would render the provision totally inoperative; but the term means less than evidence which would justify condemnation, and imports a seizure made under circumstances which warrant suspicion. Locke v. U. S., (1813) 7 Cranch (U. S.) 339. See also U. S. v. Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Boxes, (1822) 12 Fed. Rep. 402; The John Griffin, (1872) 15 Wall. (U. S.) 29; Wood v. U. S., (1842) 16 Pet. (U. S.) 342. The failure of the claimant to produce the papers known to be in his possession, which might explain suspicions excited by the uncommon circumstances of the case, makes out a prima facie case, and the burden of proof to rebut it rests on him. The Luminary, (1823) 8 Wheat. (U. S.) 407. See also Clifton v. U. S., (1846) 4 How. (U. S.) 242. Under the Act of March 15, 1820, ch. 122, prohibiting commercial intercourse with the British colonies, it was held that no goods were forfeited unless they were part of the cargo on board the vessel, and consequently that that fact must be affirmatively established. U. S. v. An Open Boat, (1829) 5 Mason (U. S.) 232. It is the province of the court and not the jury to judge whether there is such probable cause shown as to throw the onus probandi upon the claimant. Taylor v. U. S., (1845) 3 How. (U. S.) 197. See also U. S. v. Sixteen Cases Silk Ribbons, (1870) 12 Int. Rev. Rec. 175, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 16,301; U. S. v. Gay, (1815) 2 Gall. (U. S.) 359; Buckley v. U. S., (1846) 4 How. (U. S.) 251. In A suit by the government to recover timber cut on the public lands, or its value, "is not a suit to recover a penalty, or to impose a punishment, or to declare a forfeiture." such a suit the burden would be on the government to prove that the timber had been cut from the public lands, and it cannot escape this burden by seizing and taking the timber and filing a libel. Handford v. U. S., (C. C. A. 1899) 92 Fed. Rep. 881. Decree on uncontradicted testimony for claimant. Where probable cause has been shown for the seizure of a vessel to enforce a lien under section 3088, R. S., for a penalty alleged to have been incurred by her master by violations of sections 2806, 2807, 2809, and 3126, R. S., but the uncontradicted testimony for the claimant showed that the contraband merchandise had been received as freight in the due course of business, being delivered on the dock for shipment by a regular transfer company, and receipted for in the usual way, without any circumstances to justify suspicion on the part of the ship's officers, and that the master had no particular knowledge in regard to the cargo in question, a decree in favor of the claimants was entered. U. S. v. The Walla Walla, (1891) 44 Fed. Rep. 796. Applies to all suits on seizures. The rule prescribed by this section applies to all suits on seizures under revenue laws, when probable cause for the seizure is shown. Cliquot's Champagne, (1865) 3 Wall. (U. S.) 114. See also Taylor v. U. S., (1845) 3 How. (U. S.) 197; U. S. v. Sixteen Cases Silk Ribbons, (1870) 12 Int. Rev. Rec. 175, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 16,301. But see The Schooner Abigail, (1824) 3 Mason (U. S.) 331. And this includes suits for penalties and forfeitures under sections 2867 and 2868, R. S. The Coquitlam, (1893) 57 Fed Rep. 706. And also a case of seizure under section 3082, R. S. U. S. v. Seven Hundred and Forty Tins Opium, (1891) 44 Fed. Rep. 798. Sec. 923. [Seizure for forfeiture in certain cases — procedure --publication.] When any vessel, goods, wares, or merchandise are seized by any officer of the customs, and prosecuted for forfeiture by virtue of any law respecting the revenue, or the registering and recording, or the enrolling and licensing of vessels, the court shall cause fourteen days' notice to be given of such seizure and libel, by causing the substance of such libel, with the order of the court thereon, setting forth the time and place appointed for trial, to be inserted in some newspaper published near the place of seizure, and by posting up the same in the most public manner for the space of fourteen days, at or near the place of trial; and proclamation shall be made in such manner as the court shall direct. And if no person appears and claims such vessel, goods, wares, or merchandise, and gives bond to defend the prosecution thereof and to respond the cost in case he shall not support his claim, the court shall proceed to hear and determine the cause according to law. [R. S.] Act of Aug. 4, 1790, ch. 35, 1 Stat. L. 176; Act of Dec. 31, 1792, ch. 1, 1 Stat. L. 298; Act of Feb. 18, 1793, ch. 8, 1 Stat. L. 317; Act of March 2, 1799, ch. 22, 1 Stat. L. 678, 695, 696. The provision that "the court shall proceed to hear and determine the cause according to law" makes it imperative that there shall be some hearing before a decree of forfeiture, but to what extent must depend upon the circumstances of the case. "A wilful omission by the owners to answer, and thereby make disclosure as to material facts within their knowledge, might, of itself, satisfy the court that a forfeiture should be decreed. But the court will require the prosecutor to introduce full proof of the allegations in the libel, whenever the circumstances shall make it reasonable." U. S. v. The Schooner Lion, (1858) 1 Sprague (U. S.) 399. But see The Mary Anne, (1826) 1 Ware (U. S.) 104. Sec. 938. [Bailing of property seized under customs laws.] Upon the prayer of any claimant to the court, that any vessel, goods, wares, or merchandise, seized and prosecuted under any law respecting the revenue from imports or tonnage, or the registering and recording, or the enrolling and licensing of vessels, or any part thereof, should be delivered to him, the court shall appoint three proper persons to appraise such property, who shall be sworn in open court, or before a commissioner appointed by the district court to administer oaths to appraisers, for the faithful discharge of their duty; and the appraise |