Grosvenor v. Atlantic Fire Ins. Co. 523 McCarthy v. Marsh..

Mowry v. Whitney..124, 127, 128, 310 | Snodgrass v. Bank of Decatur.

CASES

ARGUED AND DETERMINED

IN THE

Circuit Courts of the United States

WITHIN THE SECOND CIRCUIT.

SAMPSON LEWEY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR

vs.

THE UNITED STATES, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR.

L. bought kid gloves in Europe, and had them packed as merchandise, in tin boxes, and the boxes put into trunks, which also contained a small amount of his personal baggage. The trunks, and their contents, were put on board of a steamer, at Liverpool, for New York, as his baggage, he going in the steamer as a passenger. The gloves did not appear on the manifest of the vessel. On arrival, L. did not claim the trunks as his baggage. They came off the vessel with the personal baggage of the passengers. The goods were seized as forfeited, because knowingly brought into the United States contrary to law, in violation of § 3,082 of the Revised Statutes, not having been entered on the manifest of the vessel, as required by § 2,806 of the Revised Statutes. At the trial in the District Court, which took place after the pas sage of the Act of June 22d, 1874, (18 U. S. Stat. at Large, 189,) that Court, under § 16 of that Act, submitted it to the jury to determine, whether L. fraudulently and knowingly, with an actual intention to defraud the United States, did so import and bring the goods into the United States, as to cause or procure them to be withheld from entry upon the manifest of the vessel: Held, that the charge was correct, and that the form of submitting such question to the jury was a proper compliance with § 16 of the said Act of 1874. (Before WAITE, Ch. J., Southern District of New York, July 1st, 1878.)

WAITE, Ch. J. Section 3,082 of the Revised Statutes provides, that, "if any person shall fraudulently or knowing

VOL. XV.-1

Lewey v. The United States.

*

*

*

any

ly import or bring into the United States merchandise, contrary to law, * * * such merchandise shall be forfeited." Another statute, passed June 22d, 1874, (18 U. S. Stat. at Large, 189,) and which was in force when the trial in this case was had, provides. (§ 16.) that, upon a trial to enforce or declare the forfeiture of any goods by reason of any violation of the provisions of the customs laws, or of any of such provisions, " in which action, suit or proceeding an issue or issues of fact shall have been joined, it shall be the duty of the Court, on the trial thereof, to submit to the jury, as a distinct and separate proposition, whether the alleged acts were done with an actual intention to defraud the United States, and to require upon such proposition a special finding by such jury."

The information in this case charges, among other things, that the goods in question were fraudulently and knowingly imported and brought into the United States, contrary to law, by some person or persons unknown. Section 2,806 of the Revised Statutes provides, that "no merchandise shall be brought into the United States from any foreign port, in any vessel, unless the master has on board manifests in writing of the cargo, signed by such master." It is conceded by the claimant, that the goods complained of were merchandise, and that they were imported into the United States, as such, from a foreign port, in a vessel which did not have them on her manifest. They were, therefore, actually imported into the United States contrary to law; that is to say, they were imported without a compliance with the forms of the law. If this was fraudulently or knowingly done by any person, the goods were forfeitable. No one contends that the ship was in fault. The only question, therefore, is, whether the importer was equally innocent. The claimant concedes that he was the importer, and the Court, in accordance with the requirement of the Act of 1874, submitted it to the jury to determine, whether he, "fraudulently and knowingly, with an actual intention to defraud the United States, did so import and bring these goods into the United States, as to cause