Coffey v. United States (116 U.S. 427)/Opinion of the Court

by Samuel Blatchford

United States Supreme Court

116 U.S. 427

Coffey  v.  United States

 Argued: January 18, 1886. ---

It has been adjudged by this court that informations under the revenue laws for the forfeiture of goods, which seek no judgment of fine or imprisonment against any person, though civil actions, and not strictly criminal cases, are so far in the nature of criminal proceedings as to come within the rule that a general verdict, upon several counts, seeking in different forms one object, must be upheld if one count is good. Clifton v. U.S., 4 How. 242, 250; Snyder v. U.S., 112 U.S. 216; S.C.. 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 118.

In this case, the first count in the amended information is good. It is founded on section 3257 of the Revised Statutes, which provides as follows. 'Whenever any person engaged in carrying on the business of a distiller defrauds, or attempts to defraud, the United States of the tax on the spirits distilled by him, or of any part thereof, he shall forfeit the distillery and distilling apparatus used by him, and all distilled spirits * * * found in the distillery and on the distillery premises, and shall be fined not less than five hundred dollars nor more than five thousand dollars, and be imprisoned not less than six months nor more than three years.' The counts of the amended information are amendments of and additions to the original information, and the allegations of the latter as to the seizure of the property, on land, by the deputy collector, and as to the fact of forfeiture, and the prayer for process, and for a decree of forfeiture, form part of the amended information, and apply to the counts therein. The language of the first count of the amended information follows that of section 3257, and is, we think, sufficient, against the general objection taken by the demurrer that it is insufficient. In U.S. v. Simmons, 96 U.S. 360, an indictment, founded on section 3281 of the Revised Statutes, alleged that the defendant 'did knowingly and unlawfully engage in and carry on the business of a distiller, within the intent and meaning of the internal revenue laws of the United States, with the intent to defraud the United States of the tax on the spirits distilled by him, against the peace,' etc. Section 3281 provides that every person who engages in or carries on the business of a distiller with intent to defraud the United States of the tax on the spirits distilled by him shall be fined and imprisoned. This court held that the indictment was sufficient to authorize judgment, and that it was not necessary to state the particular means by which the United States were to be defrauded of the tax. So, in this case, it was not necessary, under section 3257, to set forth the particular means by which the claimant defrauded and attempted to defraud the United States of the tax, or to specify the particular spirits covered by the tax. The first count of the amended information is in substantial compliance with rule 22 of the rules in admiralty. That rule prescribes regulations for the form of informations, and libels of information, on seizures for the breach of the laws of the United States on land or water; and the general rules of pleading in regard to admiralty suits in rem apply to a suit in rem for a forfeiture, brought by the United States, after a seizure on land. The Sarah, 8 Wheat. 391; Union Ins. Co. v. U.S., 6 Wall. 759, 765; Armstrong's Foundry, Id. 766, 769; Morris' Cotton, 8 Wall. 507, 511. It was not necessary to aver, in the information, that the distilled spirits found on the claimant's distillery premises, and seized, were distilled by him, or were the product of his distillery, or that the distillery apparatus was wrongfully used; because section 3257 does not make these facts elements of the causes of forfeiture denounced by it. The only necessary elements are that the per son shall be engaged in carrying on the business of a distiller, and that he shall defraud, or attempt to defraud, the United States of the tax on the spirits distilled by him. The answer admits that the claimant owned the property seized.

As to the plea of a former conviction, the proceedings being kindred to those in a suit in admiralty n rem, so far as the pleadings are concerned, nc reply or replication to the answer was necessary to raise an issue of fact on the matters averred in it. New matter in an answer is considered as denied by the libelant. Admiralty rule 51. The issue of fact as to the former conviction must be held to have been found against the claimant, by the general verdict; and no question in regard to the defense set up can be raised, in the absence of a demurrer to the answer, and of a bill of exceptions raising specific questions. Judgment affirmed.

Notes