Case ID: f2d_9/html/0396-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CALL, District Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

THE DO.
    (District Court, S. D. Florida.
    November 21, 1925.)
    No. 1715.
    Customs duties <@=>133 — Evidence held not to warrant forfeiture of motorboat for importing intoxicating liquor without permit.
    Evidence that motorboat was found tied to bank with no one aboard, and that one sack of liquor was found on board and other sacks recovered, by diving, from water near boat, held insufficient to warrant decree of forfeiture for importing liquors without permit, in violation of Tariff Act 1922, §§ 5S1, 584 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, §§ 5841h, 5841h3).
    Forfeiture- Libel. Proceeding by the United States against the motorboat Do, V-678, to forfeit the vessel for violation of Tariff Act 1922, §§ 581, 584.
    Libel dismissed.
    Francis L. Poor and R. A. Hubler, Asst. U. S. Attys., both of Jacksonville, Fla.
    Bart A. Riley, of Miami, Fla., for claimant.
   CALL, District Judge.

In this ease the libel is based on the alleged violation of two sections, 581 and 584, of the Tariff Act of 1922 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923,' §§ 5841h, 5841h3), and importing certain liquors without a permit so to do.

The only evidence to support these charges is that, when -boarded, the boat was tied to the hank, no one aboard, and one sack of foreign liquor was found aboard, and some other sacks of liquor were recovered, by diving, from the water near the boat. This, it seems to me, is not sufficient proof upon which the court can predicate a decree for forfeiture or penalties.

The libel will be, therefore, dismissed.