nor

intoxicating liquors.-This and the preceding section, providing for seizure and forfeiture of merchandise imported in violation of the customs laws, and also any vehicle used in its importation. held not apply to spirituous liquor brought into the United States from Canada, in violation of the prohibition of Act Aug. 10, 1917, c. 53, § 15 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 3115%), to an automobile used in such importation. U. S. v. One Ford Automobile and Fourteen Packages of Distilled Spirits (C. C. A. N. Y.) 262 F. 374, affirming judgment (D. C.) 259 F. 894. The penalties provided by this section including forfeiture of a vehicle used. have no application to importation into the United States of intoxicating liquors in violation of National Prohibition Act, prior to the passage of the supplemental act of November 23, 1921, but apply to importations prior to that date only when the requirements of that act have been fully complied with and the duty has not been paid. U. S. v. Federal Ins. Co. (C. C. A. Mich.) 284 F. 821.

A gasoline launch, used to unlawfully import liquor from Canada, was not forfeitable under Rev. St. § 3061 et seq. (Comp. St. § 5763 et seq.), but only under the National Prohibition Act. § 26, as to forfeiture of vehicles when transporting liquor; the latter remedy being exclusive, and section 3061 et seq. ap

§§ 5765-5770. [Repealed.]

plying only where the article imported is merchandise and can be entered at the custom house. The Goodhope (D. C. Wash.) 268 F. 694.

Vehicles used in importation of liquor cannot be forfeited under the Customs Laws providing for judgment of forfeiture invalidated bona fide lien, instead of under the National Prohibition Act, § 26, protecting bona fide lienor, on the theory that there was direct violation of the Customs Laws in regard to the importation of the glass bottles containing the liquor since the transaction cannot be split into separate parts so as to create two crimes and since the Prohibition Act protects bona fide lienors regardless of the containers in which the liquor being imported is carried. U. S. v. One Paige Automobile (D. C. Tex.) 277 F. 524.

Proceedings to forfeit vehicles used in the importation of liquor must be brought under the National Prohibition Act, § 26. protecting a bona fide lienor, and cannot be brought under the customs laws, permitting judgment of forfeiture invalidating bona fide lien; the National Prohibition Act having superseded the customs laws prohibiting the importation of liquor. Id.

Intent. The good faith or entire innocence of the owner of an automobile seized for violation of the revenue laws furnishes no reason why such automobile should not be forfeited to the United States and sold in accordance with the applicable statutes; the question of good faith being immaterial in libel proceedings to enforce such forfeiture and sale. U. S. v. One Hudson Touring Car (D. C. Mich.) 274 F. 473.

Cited without definite application, Goldberg v. U. S. (C. C. A. Minn.) 277 F. 211; In re Food Conservation Act (D. C. N. Y.) 254 F. 893.

DECISIONS AFFECTING § 5767 See U. S. v. Bookbinder (D. C. Pa.) 281 F. 206.

Cited without definite application, U. S. v. One Ford Automobile and Fourteen Packages of Distilled Spir

its (C. C. A. N. Y.) 262 F. 374; U. S. v. Kraus (D. C. N. Y.) 270 F. 578; U. S. v. Page (D. C. Va.) 277 F. 459.

DECISIONS AFFECTING § 5768 Cited without definite application, U. S. v. One Ford Automobile and Fourteen Packages of Distilled Spir its (C. C. A. N. Y.) 262 F. 374.

DECISIONS AFFECTING § 5769 Cited without definite application, U. S. v. One Ford Automobile and Fourteen Packages of Distilled Spirits (C. C. A. N. Y.) 262 F. 374; U. S. v. Borkowski (D. C. Ohio) 268 F. 408; U. S. v. Lydecker (D. C. N. Y.) 275 F.

976; U. S. v. Page (D. C. Va.) 277 F. 459; U. S. v. Bookbinder (D. C. Pa.) 281 F. 207; U. S. v. Boasberg (D. C. La.) 283 F. 305.

§ 5771. (R. S. § 3068.) Penalty on board of vessels.

Cited without definite application, U. S. v. One Ford Automobile and Four

§§ 5772, 5773. [Repealed.]

These sections (R. S. §§ 3069, 3070) 356, title IV, § 642, post, § 5841i-1. 1922," post, § 5841e-23.

DECISIONS AFFECTING § 5772 Cited without definite application, U. S. v. One Ford Automobile and Fourteen Packages of Distilled Spirits (C. C. A. N. Y.) 262 F. 374.

teen Packages of Distilled Spirits (C. C. A. N. Y.) 262 F. 374.

were repealed by Act Sept. 21, 1922, c. See, also. § 454 of the "Tariff Act of

DECISIONS RELATING TO § 5773 Cited without definite application, U. S. v. One Ford Automobile and Fourteen Packages of Distilled Spirits (C. C. A. N. Y.) 262 F. 374.

§ 5775. (R. S. § 3072.) Seizures. Cited without definite application, U. S. v. One Ford Automobile and Fourteen Packages of Distilled Spirits

(C. C. A. N. Y.) 262 F. 374; U. S. v. Hydes (D. C. Wash.) 267 F. 470.

Cited without definite application,

§§ 5777-5789. [Repealed.]

DECISIONS AFFECTING §§ 5777-5780 See 31 Op. Atty. Gen. 392.

Cited without definite application, U. S. v. One Ford Automobile and Fourteen Packages of Distilled Spirits (C. C. A. N. Y.) 262 F. 374.

DECISIONS AFFECTING §§ 5781-5784

Cited without definite application, U. S. v. One Ford Automobile and Fourteen Packages of Distined Spirits (C. C. A. N. Y.) 262 F. 374.

DECISIONS AFFECTING § 5785

1. Repeal of section.-The provision of this section, making it an offense to receive or conceal merchandise imported contrary to law, knowing it to have been so imported, as applied to whisky. held not repealed or superseded by Act Aug. 10, 1917, § 15 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 3115%), prohibiting the importation of distilled spirits, nor by Act Nov. 21, 1918, § 1 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 311511/12gg), prohibiting the importation of intoxicating liquors during the continuance of the war, neither of which acts prohibits or penal

izes the receiving or concealing of liquor imported in violation of its provisions. Goluberg v. U. S. (C. C. A. Minn.) 277 F. 211; Bank v. U. S. (C. C. A. Minn.) 277 F. 220; Weisman v. U. S. (C. C. A. Minn.) 277 F. 221.

This section authorizing the imposition of a fine, or imprisonment not exceeding two years, or both, for sale of goods unlawfully imported, is still in force, and was not repealed by the National Prohibition Act. Biddle v. Moreno (C. C. A. Kan.) 279 F. 566.

This section imposing a penalty for smuggling or aiding in concealing or disposing of smuggled goods, as applied to intoxicating liquors, is superseded by National Prohibition Act, tit. 2, §8 3, 29, which prohibit the importation of such liquor, except as therein authorized, and prescribes a less severe penalty for its violation. U. S. V. Dowling (D. C. Fla.) 278 F. 630.

National Prohibition Act, tit. 2, § 3, prohibiting possession of intoxicating liquor, except as authorized by the act, but imposing no penalty, except the general penalty of section 29, did not

act. U. S. v. Bookbinder (D. C. Pa.) 281 F. 207.

6. "Import or bring."-Under this section, providing for forfeiture of merchandise fraudulently or knowingly imported contrary to law articles prohibited from importation, if actually brought into the county, are "imported," and, if knowingly brought in, are subject to forfeiture. Feathers of Wild Birds v. U. S. (C. C. A. N. Y.) 267 F. 964.

7. "Merchandise."-Rope stolen by sailors from a ship, landed without permit, and delivered to defendant for sale, is "merchandise" in his hands, so that he may be convicted of violating this section, making it punishable to receive merchandise imported contrary to law. Goldman v. U. S. (C. C. A. La.) 263 F. 340.

Under Act Oct. 3, 1917, § 301 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 8739b), Act Nov. 21, 1918, § 4, and Act Feb. 24, 1919, § 601 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, 8 8739bb), whisky may be lawfully imported, and is therefore a "commodity of merchandise," embraced within the commercial regulations, and its smuggling is punishable. U. S. v. Powers (D. C. Wash.) 263 F. 724.

8. Concealment or possession of goods.-Under this section, prohibiting the receiving of goods known to have been wrongfully imported, and making the defendant's unexplained possession of such goods sufficient to authorize conviction, no presumption that the goods were imported contrary to law arises from the defendant's possession thereof, and the government has burden of proving this fact. Sherman v. U. S. (C. C. A. Tex.) 268 F. 516.

In a prosecution under this section, prohibiting receiving goods known to have been wrongfully imported, and making defendant's unexplained possession sufficient evidence to authorize conviction, the fact that alleged Mexican intoxicating liquor was found in defendant's possession, and he admitted its ownership, held insufficient to show that the liquor was wrongfully imported during the war with Germany. Id. This section providing that whenever, on a trial for fraudulently or knowingly importing merchandise contrary to law, etc., the defendant is shown to have had possession of such goods, such possession shall be deemed evidence sufficient to authorize a conviction, unless defendant shall explain it to the satisfaction of the jury, does not compel defendant to be a witness against himself in violation of the Fifth Amendment, as defendant may rebut the presumption by resting on the prosecution's case, or by adducing explanatory testimony, and, in either event, cannot be convicted, unless his guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Friedman v. U. S. (C. C. A. N. Y.) 276 F. 792.

Where, after a steamship passenger's baggage declaration had been given to the customs inspector, he replied, in answer to questioning, that he had declared everything, and was searched and diamonds found concealed on his person, held, that the act of smuggling was fully executed; it not being necessary to the completion of the crime that he should have left the customs inclosure. Newman v. U. S. (C. C. A. N. Y.) 276 F. 798, certiorari denied 42 S. Ct. 317, 258 U. S. 623, 66 L. Ed. 796.

II. Penalty or fine-Remedy.-On a trial for importing aigrettes, etc., where the court had fully charged as to the presumption of innocence and as to reasonable doubt, and had explained the statutory presumption arising from the possession of the property, the refusal of a requested instruction that, where the evidence was susceptible of two constructions, from one of which the jury might draw an inference of guilt and from the other an inference of innocence, defendant was entitled as a matter of law to the benefit of the inference of innocence, held not error, especially as it might be construed as referring to separate pieces of evidence. Friedman v. U. S. (C. C. A. N. Y.) 276 F. 792.

12. Indictment.-Under an indictment charging defendant with fraudulently and knowingly importing aigrettes, etc., allegations that the goods were imported on a certain date and by a certain steamer were superfluous.-Friedman v. U. S. (C. C. A. N. Y.) 276 F. 792.

Under an indictment charging defendant with fraudulently and knowingly importing aigrettes, etc., allegations that the goods were imported on a certain date and by a certain steamer were superfluous, and it was not necessary to prove them. Id.

In an indictment under Criminal Code, § 37 (Comp. St. § 10201), for conspiracy to receive and conceal whisky after its unlawful importation into the United States, knowing the same to have been imported in violation of law, in violation of this section, it is not necessary to allege the facts relating to the importation of the whisky. Goldberg v, U. S. (C. C. A. Minn.) 277 F. 211; Bank v. U. S. (C. C. A. Minn.) 277 F. 220; Weisman v. U. S. (C. C. A. Minn.) 277 F. 221.

An indictment for conspiracy to receive and conceal whisky imported into the United States contrary to law, knowing that it had been so imported, in violation of this section, and alleging as overt acts that defendants removed the whisky from the railroad cars in which it had been brought into the United States for the purpose of concealing the same, held not insufficient because it did not allege the time of such importation, where the importa

tion of whisky was absolutely prohibited by a well-known act of Congress in force several months prior to the overt acts charged, nor because it described the importation in the language of the statute as "contrary to law," without specifying the statute violated. Id.

An indictment for smuggling, and for receiving, and facilitating the transpor-. tation, concealment, and sale of, smuggled merchandise, is sufficient, where it describes the merchandise as four bottles of whisky. U. S. v. Powers (D. C. Wash.) 263 F. 724.

Under this section, it is not necessary to describe smuggled merchandise in an indictment by the name under which it is described in the tariff schedule. Id.

a witness that he saw the rope which he had helped steal from the ship in a cart in the control of defendant is sufficient to identify the rope as that stolen and which was landed contrary to law. Goldman v. U. S. (C. C. A. La.) 263 F. 340.

A judgment of conviction of a defendant under this section, for knowingly receiving and concealing goods imported contrary to law, held not sustained, where there was no evidence whatever that the goods in question were imported contrary to law. Shillitani v. U. S. (C. C. A. N. Y.) 279 F. 393.

The finding in an automobile in this country of bottled "export" American whisky from Canada in transportation without a permit will be taken as sufficient to prove a charge it was being transported with intent to defraud the United States of import and other taxes due thereon. U. S. v. One Buick Roadster (D. C. Mont.) 280 F. 517.

Evidence that liquors received by defendant bore foreign labels, and did not have thereon any custom house marks or brands, and that defendant was found in a room with the goods, from some of which the foreign marks had been scraped off, held to make defendant's knowledge the goods were imported a question for the jury. U. S. v. Bookbinder (D. C. Pa.) 281 F. 207.

14. Forfeiture-In general.-On information by the United States against §§ 5791, 5792. [Repealed.]

a cattle company for forfeiture of cattle for unlawful importation, wherein individuals intervened and claimed the cattle or their value, judgment that the interveners recover from the cattle company possession of the cattle, and, if they were not delivered, recover a sum per head, the value as assessed for each head not delivered, held proper. Morris Land & Cattle Co. v. Kilpatrick (C. C. A. Tex.) 256 F. 788.

The finding of feathers of a kind the 'importation of which is prohibited in the possession of claimant, in the absence of a consistent explanation, held probable cause, and to sustain a judgment of forfeiture, under this section, and Tariff Act, § 3, par. T (Comp. St. § 5791). Feathers of Wild Birds v. U. S. (C. C. A. N. Y.) 267 F. 964.

Prohibited goods are ipso facto forfeited by the fact of importation. U. S. v. Sischo (D). C. Wash.) 262 F. 1001.

Spirits brought into the United States in violation of certain acts of Congress herein cited (sec. 15 of the Food Control Act of Aug. 10, 1917 [Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, §. 3115%, sec. 301 of the War Revenue Act of Oct. 3, 1917 [Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 8739b], and 1

sec.

of the Act of Nov. 21, 1918 [Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, §§ 311511/128, 311511/128g, 311511/12ggg]), may be seized and forfeited under this section. 31 Op. Atty. Gen. 392.

15. Information for forfeiture.Technical defects in an information for forfeiture of merchandise for importation in violation of the customs laws will be disregarded, unless timely objection is made. U. S. v. TwentyFive Pictures (D. C. N. Y.) 260 F. 851.

Cited without definite application, U. S. v. One Bag of Paradise and Ghoura Feathers (C. C. A. N. Y.) 256 F. 301; U. S. v. One Ford Automobile and Fourteen Packages of Distilled Spirits (C. C. A. N. Y.) 262 F. 374; Ketchum v. U. S. (C. C. A. Ark.) 270 F. 416; U. S. v. Sischo (C. C. A. Wash.) 270 F. 958; In re Food Conservation Act (D. C. N. Y.) 254 F. 893; 32 Op. Atty. Gen. 404.

DECISIONS AFFECTING § 5791

Probable cause.-In a suit by the United States for forfeiture of feathers of wild birds, seized from defendant's possession, as having been imported in violation of the prohibition of Tariff Act § 1, Schedule N. par. 347, under section 3, T, of said act, the burden rests on libelant to show "probable cause," which is synonymous with "reasonable cause," for the prosecution,

"to be judged of by-the court," and the finding of the court thereon has the weight of the verdict of the jury in the appellate court. U. S. v. One Bag of Paradise and Ghoura Feathers (C. C. A. N. Y.) 256 F. 301.

The finding of feathers of a kind the importation of which is prohibited in the possession of claimant, in the absence of a consistent explanation, held probable cause, and to sustain a judg