- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
UNITED STATES v. PIERSON, (W.D.Wash. 1930)
Proceeding by the United States against Edwin William Pierson.
Decree in accordance with opinion.
The defendant having this day been adjudged guilty of the offense of transporting intoxicating liquor in violation of the National Prohibition Act, as charged in the indictment, in a "Ford-A Coupe, motor number 1810452" automobile, and said automobile having been seized by the arresting officers, it is ordered that, pursuant to the provisions of section 26, title 2, of the National Prohibition Act (27 USCA § 40), unless good cause to the contrary be shown in the above-entitled cause, at the hour of 10 o'clock a.m., on the 10th day of December, 1930, said automobile will be ordered sold, and at said time and place all persons having or claiming any right, title, or interest in, or lien upon, said automobile are required to appear, and, by intervention or otherwise, establish the same or be forever barred and estopped so to do, sale to be made by the United States marshal, who will take from the seizing officer of the law, possession of the said automobile and hold the same until further ordered by the court; and this order will be his warrant so to do.
This order to be published by the United States marshal in the "Daily Journal of Commerce" once a week for the period of two weeks, the last day of publication to be at least ten days before the day aforesaid, and such publication shall be notice to all the world.
NETERER, District Judge.
By expressed provision of section 26, tit. 2, National Prohibition Act (27 USCA § 40), the transporting vehicle must be seized by officers making the arrest. Separate proceeding to forfeit is not required. Every office of a separate forfeiture proceeding is provided by section 26, supra, and the vehicle being in custodia legis, the court shall, unless good cause be shown, sell the same. The statute gives a new power, a power to divest title of the offending thing from the owner, and the statute provides the means of enforcing such power. Franklin Glass Co. v. White, 14 Mass. 288.
In United States v. Hydes, 267 F. 470, at page 471, this court said:
"Under various acts of Congress, property may be seized. Each act has a procedure applicable to its provision. Under Act March 2, 1799, 1 Stat. 678, 3 Fed. Stat. Annot. 95, the right to libel was absolute, and not dependent upon statutory conditions and restrictions; and the return of a car used in violation of Act June 22, 1874, § 17 (Comp. St. § 10132), could not be decreed prior to a declaration of forfeiture. U.S. v. One Certain Locomobile (D.C.) 242 F. 998. Act June 15, 1917 (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 7678f [22 USCA § 240]), gives the owner the right to petition a restoration any time before condemnation proceedings have been instituted. Under the acts, supra, the disposition of the property is decreed upon trial after seizure on process duly issued.
"By the provisions of section 26, supra, the vehicle after seizure may be instantly returned to the owner, upon execution by him of a bond to produce the property at the criminal trial, and disposition must be decreed upon the trial of the criminal case. Forfeiture * * * depends upon the statute. Congress may declare the forfeiture absolute upon seizure, or make the forfeiture depend upon conditions. U.S. v. Stowell, 133 U.S. 11, 10 S. Ct. 244, 33 L. Ed. 555."
See, also, U.S. v. Two Hundred and Sixty-seven Gold Pieces (D.C.) 255 F. 217.
The Supreme Court, in Port Gardner Investment Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 569, 47 S. Ct. 165, 71 L. Ed. 412, and in Commercial Credit Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 226, 48 S. Ct. 232, 72 L. Ed. 541, has held that on conviction of transportation of intoxicants, the provisions of section 26 become mandatory and furnish the exclusive remedy for forfeiture of the offending vehicle. And, also, in Richbourg Motor Co. v. United States, 281 U.S. 528, at pages 534, 535, 536, 50 S. Ct. 385, 387, 74 L. Ed. 1016, says:
"But the prescription in detail, by title 2, § 26 (27 USCA § 40), whenever transportation is involved, of successive steps to be taken, which, if followed, lead unavoidably to forfeiture under that section and no other, with the important consequence of protecting the interests of innocent third persons, suggests a definite purpose to make the protection effective by bringing all forfeitures in such cases under its controlling provisions.
"The objective of title 2, § 26, is not the prosecution of the offender, elsewhere provided for, but the confiscation of the seized liquor and the forfeiture of vehicles used in its transportation, to the limited extent specified in the section. Every act which it enjoins on public officials is directed to that end. * * * Such * * * seizure require the government to proceed for forfeiture of the vehicle under title 2, § 26," which provides that, "the court upon conviction of the person so arrested shall order * * * unless good cause * * * is shown * * * a sale * * * of the property seized."
Alert