OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

tlonorable Tau Sesy 

County Attorney 

Pottvr county 

Amarillo, Tosea 

‘i ‘\: 

mu 18 vlth rder 

the opiimn 0r this departme 

ter reque8tlng 

11 b e l 0Jd unlsrr 

aontrarg 16 shovn? 

"2. XX yau u-aver the ebovs que8tien in 

the neg(ttlvel, please rdvl80 u to the muter end 

lerqth or tlete far vuoh auah notlrre should be 

given. 
Xonor&ble Tops Saay, p8ge 2 

“31. sh0uld th0 0rdw or eel0 0r owh a 

osbiole .arrd releted proeeedia$e be r,emdered la 

ooAwotiQA vith mad m e pert or the orl.m3.nel 

pr000eutbua egeinet the derendent, or is it ma800ery for the Set0 ‘to rib l eep er el tuit e on 

the civil doaket in order to obtain l uoh up ord0r or l 0280* 

Article I, Seation 14, or the Teue Llqucw Control Act lo taken ana ror the moot pUrt, sopied tram &atan 26 or Title d or the Petloeal Prohibition Aat (Title 

27, Sootlon 40, WCA), aov repe@lod. Wuee the tvo eat0 

are almoot ldentloel inrof8r au the preeorlbed proardure 

ror rareiture 0r reeeelv aad whloleo uavd in tivrul 

traruportatlon 0r aleaholu bev*regeo, the deeielone 0r 

tba Pederrl Court0 oometr the Uetlon81 Problbltlan Aat 

in thle regard wet be eon01 -tared ee ~uvolve in oonvtrua g e l ir iler p o vieio ~ or the 2ma e uor Cati Act. 

fn Volun 39, pqe WI, of Toxav Jwleprudenae, 

it ia etated: 

“) 140. Adoptid 8tatutee. -- A #awea, 

prateion or etatute adopted rrca the lave or 

eaether etate (IF osuntry Vill 0dbarl4 be given 

the l ew wnetrwtlen in Cue0 thet it b ed r eeoo:d in the jurledlotiea Rror uhleh it vu borxr it hod been given 8 rtlud a~0 doriait 

tebelal~ by the oourte or thet jur~eclh3tion, 1t 

Vlll be giVeI% the l apo meuoin(g in TeXae. The 

rule rbete upon the peeumptlen thet the Lo@*- 

&tare vee aver0 or the judleial laterpretetlon 

giVOA iA the jUPi~d%OtiCUX rrQI0 Vhbh the et&tute vu takea, aad thet in aloptiaq *UC& et&- 

ute it lx&ended eleo to l oeept eueh aonetcwt1oA. 

e&lOOrdb&k~ the X'OfiOUO QOAOt&WtiOA Or 

en adopted l t8tute ril P ba re&eMed u l pert 

o f th0 la , M d vi11 b e r0xm0d wl000 it ep 

peer0 to be eontrery to t&e l plrlt es& polio 

of the furloprudeao* 0r Teaee. Horeover, eu L 

l 8q WAt conetrwtlene 0r co 4tlOpteQ otatuto by 

the aourte 0r the rtate from vhiab At vee imjmrted ere atron& pereuaeive of the interpretetlen 
th.t ehould bo pleaed UpW It IA th0 edopting 

l t*te . 

* ” . . . . 

Beroro dleaueeleg e8oh or your queetione, the 

gontsrel l ubjeot 0r the procedure for rorrelture 0r autcmobllee under the repealad IUtlonal Prohibitton Act will be 

notloed. 

It 10 nmlteet that thmre lo a la& or &rinlte 

powdure preeerlbed, both in the Texm Liquor Control mt 

W in the liatloaal Prohibitlun hat, by vbloh to determine 

the relative right0 Or all pertlee oowemed la the property 00 ae to peslude them at cmee urd r0r all tbrr rp0I 

rurthw olaaing any intereat t&rein. 

la the aaoe or Oalted 8t8tee v. QXM Stephone Automobile, 272 Pod. Rep. 188, lo rwad l rull and aoqdete dleaueelon or meny qwetlone Iavolved In 

or 

oeudlnge r’0r r0rrelture or &utamobllee under th s repo l d 8edua.l Act. For 

a oamprehen8lva undoretendlng Or the ooneluelone reeehed 

in thet oeea, a0 mey be or ueleteaae in ocmetrulag the 

Texae Aot, the tollou~ hngu&ge, deemed pertlneat, lo 

quoted: 

(I The est denwwed by tUe l e6tloa 

lo tb*~t&uwt~tlon 0r llqbmre in violetian of 

lev, urd requlree thet, uhea 0 pereon 10 dieQovereG fu the let, tha llqwre bdng truuported ehell bo eeieed, the vehIale La lfhioh they 

are being oarrled teken into pOOOOOOlOn by the 

orrhw, end the pueon b uherge thereor -- 

thet lo, 0r the llquore ud vehlclo - erreoted, all to hollow preotio81ly ocurewrmtl~ vith 

a dleaovery or the pert Or the 0rraOr or l 

pereon In the l 0t 0r traaeportlng l*qufm ofaitrery to lav. Tha vehlo& ueed IA tmnepO*tatloon or the liquor0 Psocuee um orrendlng thing, 

88 the pereon dleoovered la the eot Ie the ofIader, end lo to be dealt vith l e eeotfoa 26 

0r tltle 2 0r t&m eat rurthr provide*. 

'Thie eeotlorr l eome to oonte~lete thet, 

UpOn OOWiOtiOA Sr the piHOw ep~head0d ia 

the trpneportettan or the lntoxloente, the vehicle or other ooeft ueod in euoh trenep8tetlaa 
: , 

iionorebla Toa my-, pege 8 

*hell be 0010 in eny event. bmleee the ovner ebw 

go& eeuee tc) the oontr&ry. United Statee v. 

ikockley (D. G.) 266 Fed. 1001. When eold, the 

proaesde thelcoof, efter the peyment of the expeasor attending the eeiruro end oak ud euah 

bone fide liene ee ore eetebllehed OgOS.nOthe 

property, am required to be oovered into the 

treaeury or the Uaited 3tetee. Afxer *ale, all 

lien8 qelnet the propert 

the prweede. Bone ride T 

ore treneierred to 

I~IW mey be oetebliehed by lntorvention or othervlee ‘8t raid 

hoerhg,’ or in other prooeedlng brought rm 

It hovewr no one ehell be 

KiTLEXT&ng t&e vehisli, it 10 provided thet 

the tekiag 0r the l eme,vlth the deeoription 

thereof, em11 be edvsrtleed la mower provided, 

and, ir no elelment ehell ap9eer vithin 10 day0 

titer the leet publleetlon of the edmrtleawnt, thw thet the property *hell be *old 

8nd the prooeede peld into the trereury of 

the UnLted Stats0 l e eiIeo*lleeooue~r*celpte. 

“lt would eppeer thet the prowdur* provided, vhere no one lo louad 6leIRln& the propertr, lo urple r0r diveetiture or title, 00 

eppproprlete AotLM to interrated pertIce ie 

prowldo&, 6nd en opportunity for m claimerat 

to ep9ear cwl preeumably to be herrb lo AIEoFded. But IA the aret IrPetaaee, 80 we have 

**am, the eat dLreote that upan oonvtutlon 

of the pcreon mreeted, sroept upon aood ceuee 

ehovn by the ovmw, the oourt ehell order a 

role et publie l wtlo n of the property eelecd, 

thet lo, the vehlole or other oreft wed La 

tr8AOpOFting the iAtartarAte, aad thea hOV the 

prowade oh011 be diepoeed of. Ho deoleretion 

Or #OFfeitUXO Or OOAdWAetiOA Or tha prOp@rty 

eelead ie provided ior. The pro*Leian for trenePerrin~ the lien8 0r clelmente to the prooeede 

ol ths eels vould eeem to indtoete e legieletlm 

purpoee to sxtsnd to lien olelmrote the r&g&t 

to pureue t&f& OllLau, to the -tOAt or prooaedhg agaillat the procmsde ef’ter l rlr) that 

lo to oeg, the aeh ltee~ VP0 not doeQpwd to 

out err oontroveray a0 to the rigbte of bone 

fide clalaatlts tM&.i~ the pPbpaFty l 818ed 6tid 

ordwed to be sold. So it ie 8e~Uare t thet the 

ovum io not precluded by the ordm of eele 
ikonorebls foe 3eey, pegs 5 

and the 8ab mode In pureueme thereor, nor ore 

the lien cleIment8. 

“As to the pxooedure, the otfioer mklly 

the sole lo required to 9ey 811 bane tide llene 

which ere eetabliehed bye Intervention or othervie6 et ‘said heerlng’ or other proceeding brought 

for th6 purpoer. b mbiguity 6xlete l e to vhet 

lo went by the ulie of the vorde ‘uid heerIag.* 

Do they rsrlate to the triel ot the pQreon wrested, or to t&c! hoerlng broqht on by intervention 

or otherviee, 3r other proseeding brought for 

the gurpcea of dete~ainlag the relldity of tho 

liens alaimed, or their reletlve prlorltles? 

“I up 0r the vlev thet the letter vee LAtended. The order of eele vould l eem to follov 

l UtQWtiC6llU9OR y WAtiOtiOA. There lo ~0 provlelonfor 8 trlel touoh%ng the rl@te of aleImente to the property et the tlw 0r the trlel of 

the pereon arreeted. Ln feet, euo h l . hea r ing 

VGdd eeem to be oollet6r8l to eny luau6 ee to 

th6 guilt of the pereon erreeted. lo aottre 0r 

the eelewe OS tbe property 18 provided by vlliab 

to preolude partlee intereetsd therein, unleee 

It be thet the eelture iteelr lo deemed euffialent, why prorlde later for l dvertlelng the l 8l.6 

la oe8e ~0 one *hell b6 fsimd clelmlng the property, cud opportunity r0r olei.mente to appeu IA 

pureuenam of the edvertlwrUat? 

“It ie menlfeet that there Lo 144k of definite prooedur6 prsecrlb6d l ppllceble In the 

firat inetOnoe by vhioh to determlas tha relative rights OS 811 putiee sowerned in th6 pro90 

erty, 00 00 to prealude thea l t 01109 end r0r l ll 

tincr Sram rurther cleFPing eny intereet therein. 

IWv, t.h6 governa4nt h40, vlth 4 vtev t4 4ond4mfng the property eeieed enB affording e hearing 

to 011 9ert:ee comerned, aad dieposing or the 

eema or the low dlreete, iaetltuted the lprownt 

proeeedlng, though m6erm or vhet lo t6rined e 

libel, and the prlsery qwetlon lo vhether euoh 

prooaedfng lo l pproprlete aad 06~ be eveil6d of 

for the pkwpoee. 

i&nor&la Tom Sexy, page 7 

“met conviction ~88 bed %n the c~t&aLnal 

oaure 18 a pertinent allegation to the @overnwrit’s right to condemn the automobile. For the 

went of such ellegetion, the libel or I.nfomatiou nuut be held to be b8UffiCi4Qt. . . .” 

in the cat34 of aoneral Motor8 kcceptence Corporetion v. iJnfted 3tetes, 23 Fed. (26) 799, by 6 Fcderel Co&z% 

of’ Clrcult kpjwfilo in Rorth CurOUR&, an autosaobile war 

seized by Pederal Prohibition &Ult, end Upon 88iaUre VW 

sound to contein thirty-five Ejallons of l loobO~io liquor 

upor? vh,lch the tax had not been paid. UpOn motion of ths 

Uorted State@’ Attorney the aourt entered an orc?sr cenbemning 'and fozSeLtlr&g the autornoblle under 3eotlorr 26 of Title 

2 of the HatLone PrOhibltlon Act (27 USCA, Seation &I), end 

ordered the automobile turned over to the Prohlbltion Adminl8trator for ~84 in the snforosmsnt of the iEationa1 Rohlbltlon Act. tkxerm]. biotorlr AoOeptence Corporetion held a 

valid but unrecorded lien on the autOmobile. This sect wea 

well. known to the PrOhZbltlcn~ent 84f%iA& the eutcirnotlle, 

yet the haoeptonae Cmpor8tlon ~88 not notified OS the p-c+- 

oeedfng and &Fd not learn OS it until the omwt had placed 

the e4hlolQ in tbe hands bf the Prohlbitiun A&enta for their 

IA remuti1n.g the wne to the lover court far further 

%iOA the OoWt 8Qid; 

I) 

. . . . 

"It would neem, in view of the fbat that 

the governmerit~s agent8 kneu of the cleSe Of the 

appellant, that fair dealing would have rquired 

SoiiIQ notice to appellellt of the pro444ding to 

fortelt . Certainly the govemiaent end ita offloerr o&m do no 108.9 then to mooo~d t5 the p8rties 

st lntere8t that 8~14 fair deel3.q and good felth 

thet 18 rsguirad in deal-, vlth the government 

and its weIIt8. in no other way ottrk the enforoemuat of the lt3aW be mede uhole8olaely rerpsoted. 

" 

. to maqulre jurirdlction, the cowt 

isAy noi &ly alone upon tha seiz.ure of the prohibition ef$elltl, but there 8hotid be e libel filed 

or other 8pproprimt.e pl"Oaeeaing had. Thlo ve8 

not b.me in thie c&w, but the order es entered 

Vail bmaad solely upon the ileisure of thu pmhlbitlon agent. . . . 
“The government oontand8 th8t ke8uw the 

contra& cf a818 held by tha .p&tnt Ita8 not 

reaorded, it v18 sot efteotlre agafaat the Oltim 

og the United state0 for iorfelture, md that 

under the North Carollna regfatr~tlon atbtute 

(C. 9. 1 3308 et seq., aa meaded), reqtirlng 

the reglakriag of auah Qaatr&ota to 88ke thea 

mud, a$ apin@t &W8dltOr8 G? pwohuers for 

ralue, the f*llurv to register rendera appellant’r lfm void ma awlnat the government98 

ol8fa or forfeiture. we MJUXOt MMDt thh 

ViUU. 

out ZlOtlOe, and the government or the IJaded 

water, in e r6rreftfae praoee~ng or ma 

klad, dew not OQI w&or olther 6lua. St&a 

v. all* 91 u. Y8. 648, ill 8. 8. 8fiojoi wotorr 

co. f. JMk8oJa, la4 II. c 380 ilk 8. 5. 4793 

United State8 v. Torrra b.C.j iI91 t. 3.38. la 

t&e ease laat oltwl, ln UL able opinloa, Jvdw 

Sow dl8ouwea thl8 quaatlen, U propart~, 

ve think, readm the oeaoluaion that, evea 

tn the 8baenoe of reo6m¶atioa, the right0 of 

tbeunlted 5tateeu brmdbf the muonal 

iwhfbftfcm llct u-0 l b er dia 6tto o d the r lg tr , 

ti Loa tide &fumra vltbout ~otlve of the il- 

&al we 0s the ourylag whlole. 

‘A&n, it ia owtendvd on behalf of the 

Lahe 

avorawnt that the l ppelUmt V*a tilty of 

a in delaa to set up it0 c k l8 uat11 

Mmoh 18, l9i27, v&en the o&m fat lorf*iture 

vu entered on Ootober 4, 1926. . . . Appellant did not k.?&ov oi tha ~ooeodbg Under the 

19atloaal Pxwhlbltloa A& urrdil %mad.Utrly before the ill&q of it0 petttion. m govwasent could ham notiiled 6ppsll@nt of the wtlan 

taken at my Mae, but did not do w, md BPpellaxtt w3ted irudl*telz at learnLog the true 

altuntlon. Under these el&wumstM~e~. VI do 

not feel tkat the &arge &sf U&&e8 ma propmly 

be la16 at appellant ‘a doe,. 

. I 

. . . . 
IIoaorbble Tom Seay, m 9 

Without going further ta quote froa addithnal 

eaaee re2atlve to the g u r el rbJMt a l invo lvIt edto , deemed 

eufS%olent to atete that ve heve aereiully rarieved the w 

aeaea Qitud in the 8naotat~oM under !&Otion 40, Title 27, 

of USOA, the applloclble l eatlmu of the Pederal Wgeat, the 

sxhauatlve treatment given the l ubjaot in A. L. E. emI many 

other authorltiea touahing 0~ the 4generil l ub jeoSlnoe t. 

the prltxlpler aruaounoed lo the a8888 just quoted from have 

never l uaoeaatully been ahallen&ed, it ia thou&t tUt thoae 

a6888 nL&ht be wad aa ~uldea lo 

p” 

oaeedlnga Sor the forSeltuca al automobile8 wader the e-8 Liquor Control Aat. 

Pro8 t&e l uthorltloa thw revleved, lnoludlng the 

apDlUable protlaiona of the TUIi Liquor Control Aat, ve 

vlll attempt to dlaouaa the qU8OtiOlU raioed in your lottor 

vlthout reiexenoe to thalr n8nerloal order OS l uah queatlone. 

It ia only aStor the final aaavl#iloa OS the per000 la ohargo of the automobile at the tlm of it0 l a ixur a 

that any prooeedlng uy be had relative to the ZorSeltora~ 

After the flaal ooavlotion,vlriohm8y bram lnatmee8 owasum m month8 eapaoiall~ ii t&a dotendaat appeala, a 

petltloa l hould be filed la 'a oourt ef Wmptent jiWlOdl~- 

tiffn." The oaae la om in ram uul the mHXmAUe 10 tbr 

real 6oSeadaut. %se petltlon should aUe@ the aeisure and 

olrgumatuuses l urroundiiqg abm u veU u the deaarlption 

of the automobile. It should allege the nay of the peraoA 

in o h a r gOS a mm at the time o f the l Uur e and the raot 

OS auoh peraonw8 f-1 aonvlotlm. It vould AOt be lA&wOpW 

ve thlak to allege that the ptoaeedbing, la one to eatorae the 

forS*lture that ha0 raauZted bin&r Seattan 44 US &tie18 I 

OS the T#aa Llquox Control Aat from the coovlotlon OS unlavful trensportation 0P lntoxicetlng liquor, 1,n the comilaalon of vhleh offense the m&mobile v&a used (Phariar Y. 

kirbxoqgh, 128 9. U. (ad) 661). The prayer should bolt Sor 

a Judiaial dea~ee or foFielture and far an ordbc of aale end 

the dlrtrf~butioa of the prooeed8 of the bale in aoaordanoe 

vlth the prorlalona oZ &tie& I, Seatiofa 44, of the Tenr 

Liquor CQatrol Aat. ;Ln ordar to .&ford a;11 interested 

part188 ~1. opportunity of being heud, the petition l hould 

be prersnted to the Judge OS the oourt hbviag uriadictlon 

who should a& the matter dovn for hewlug, 8l i ovl.ng aufflaient tl.ae for thoae intoreated in l tmh oue to be notlSi86. 

ii0 partioular fore of notlee la pra8orlbed. In thir aonneotion, Ve think it vould be popor far tho8e oliioera Sntsrsatcd in the proaeautlon to meertala, &a beat they 0~1. thoae 

olaimfag am fntereat in the rahiela W to aobify auoh pa&tlea 
Bonorable TOA Seay, page 10 

of euah hearlog. Neither the form of the notice nor the 

length of time required are presorlbed. If the owner of the 

whlale has been duly notlfled of the hearing end fails to 

appear, doubtless his rights in the vehicle will. be terminated. If the owuer has not beeh notified of the hearing and 

does not aFppear and assert his olalm, then the vehicle should 

be advertised as prescribed In the statutes. After the hearIng at whI?h interested partlea mu& have had an opportunity 

to be head, and If ~the ou Is ordered eold, it is provided: 

The orfloer making the aale . . . shall. 

pay aU. liens, aooording to their prlorltlsa, 

which are eetabllshed by Intervention or otherwlae at said hearing or In other prooeed1nc-s 

brought for said :.~~;~pose.~ 

What Is a “oourt of oompetent jurIsdIotion* aa 

used in the Act? Obviously the orimlnal prooeediag against 

the defendant must be brought in the county aourt. Under the 

~~a~~~~fg~~(up”~s~u~~l~rou~, oupra, It would afrpear that 

In the many rederal oases reviewad, 

upon the oonriotlon or thtl one In charge; the automobile Is 

forfeited alpso laoto.* Any prOOe8dlng brought thereafter 

to %ieouxew or *enform and forfelture,” as those terms are’ 

used in Pharlss v. YAbrough 1s neoessarily aaoillary pr 

*a mere Incident to the arintlnal 0asa.w In M.llIs, et al., 

v. State, 150 3. w. 904, it Is saldr 

“That provision or our oontltutlon (artl01s 3, 1 81, whlo:l gives the dlatriat oourt jurlsdlcti~n *or all suits In behalf or tho atata 

to recover penaltied, forfeitures end esaheate,* 

applies and has aLeaye been ooustrued by all the 

oourts to mimn oxolusl.vely aivll oases. And haa 

never been oonstrued by my court to apply to 

forfeitures of bhfl ‘bonds In orlmminal. oases. Both 

the Suprend Cmrt and this oourt hold that the rorfeiture of .&ail boixls in orkLual oases is a 

Aere Inoident to tha orlalnal oaso, and that, 

while aft’er the rendition Of the judgmmt nisi 

the proceedings shall be conducted 6,s oIvI1 

oases, yet that all suoh eases are criminal 

oaees and Noel; oivil oasc;a, and the state oennot a peal therefrom. 

e 

2330 8000 or th0 ~a333 

oolla ed from this and tho Supreme Court ln 

S&tiOn 437, p. 320, Of White’3 C. C. Y.* 
Bonorabke TOD buy, page ll 

8inoe a proauding to fwf4lt I ball bond "18 8 

mere imldent to the orlminal aa88," YO thlmk that by the 

um analogy, a prweediag to seawe or enforoe a forfeiture 

of an automobile under the Texas Liquor Control Aot is llk4- 

uise P 'mere incident of th4 orftinel oa8e." It ir not ala 

original prooeedlng but la merely anailla~y to the ~rim.lnal 

oaure, a8 18 pointed out in United St&tea V. One Stephena Automobile, rupra. If th4 oounty court ha8 juri8diotion of the 

original offen80, it neoe88arily follow8 tUt it bar jurlrdiotlen of a subsequent prooeoding to "enforoe the forfeiture 

that Mu ruulted under the statute.' The value of the m&tomobile, in our opinion, 1s not material in detemfniag jwirdiotlon. Undsr authority of Yllli8, et al., v. State, ve 

thlnktba prooeeding(toenf~oethe forfeiture shouldbe 

filed on the ariai dwkst. 

Par a fuller under8tanding of the Qwrtlon herein 

dlmua8ed some of th4 deoirions pertain&& to evlden4e and 

burden of proof vi11 be noticed. 

Under &otlon 40 of 27 USCA (11 Stat. X5), a8 well 

a8 under 8eotion 44 of Artiole I of the Tour Liquor Control 

Aot, the bunion 18 upon the lienor to ertabU8b that hi8 lien 

is bona fide and that It vu oreated without hi8 having any 

notiae or rouon to believe tht the wryI- vehicle Ya8 beyUyu% or was to be wed, for the llle&al tren8portatlon 

. 

T&B good faith of the partier, and l8ek of knowledge 

or reuon to sp ehend, on the venda'8 pt, that the vehiole 

upon mhicrh the f@ fen is t&m or roeerred will be rued in viol&ion of the law, mut be ert8blMMd a8 of the date of itr 

we&ion. 

This burden 18 4~ually inombent upon tbe b88ignor 

~;h~ta881gm4 of the lien, uhloheveP ir alaimlq rights 

(28) 387: 

United States V. One Btiak Coupe Auto 58 Ped. 

See al80 47 A.L.R. 1058; 61 A.L.R. 54; 73 A.L.R, 

1093; and 82 A.L.R. 609. 

40 Fed. (23 

the ease of C. I. T. Corporation v. tinlted States, 

82~,byClrcuitCourt of A 

purohesed an iY 

la, 

automobile from one !&arrha O'R481. 

on4 c&o~;18e 

ifter tb4 8alr the purohaee note VU dlrpomd of to the C.I.T. 

Corporatlan, vblsh ie a dealer in thlr aheraoter of oommeroial 

p P wr l Both Lee and O'Seal lived in a 813~11 town In South 

Pakcts where the 8ale ooourred. The purchaser of the not4 
had its offioe in a distant oity f8r fra the p]uOO of the Origirulsale. It i8 UndiS uted -t th. c. 1. 9. CWJIOWtiOn had 

no notice of the ooniemp tated Illegal we of the ou, or before 

sefare, of th8 8otual illegal u8e. Tha Ooivt held however that 

if O'Jleal, the original seller, had SUOb notloo, that 8uOh 

notlae would ba imputed to his Usl&nae, C. I. 4. ~OrpOXWtion. 

In thlr o8se the Court aaldr 

"@Hotloe,l within this st8tute, ham tha ordinary legal meanlPg of knowledge of the lllewl 

U88 or Of faOt8 vhloh vould put l reuoerbly 

dent man upon lnqulr~. The l vldemo1e sa8 fo ‘“- - 

1OUSc O'Xe8l had 1lVed all hi8 life in XuroA, 

a uall olty in South Dnkota. For about 8evua 

year8 he Md been in the gro8ery bu8inrsa and f6r 

about eighteen months had been rellin(, mutwObile8 8180. Xe had knoun G. A. Lu fa nbout 

8even yur S M d h a d l Sp Uk iRg UQUb int~OOí With 

hi8 son,Eelwyke. B, knw that C. A. Leo had 

been in the pool ml BuIiuas, but fop l po~lod 

of )a feu youlrg he Us not doln& uythiae. At 

thetlms of the 8810 he did not know thebruiness of &nrr Lse aor at Us reputatlan and made 

no ln~ulry in th8t regtard. Xenry Lu h6d purehued 8 Xudson oar thsretofwe md &d browt 

y$yoruto O’Heal in rogud to the urohue 

iie testlfled ha did not EL w of the 

OO~te8@4& illOP;ti USe Of tb OU Or Of it8 being so used before it Ui selsed by th8 fedor 

authOPltle8. Xe ude no lnvestigat~on of th8 

bu8¶.WSS Of C. A. tie or fOr what pU.VpOM th8 

oar vu to be used, but did knbutlat ha U 

p=m~ty~ PO meet this proof, the government 

established th8t the purahUer ukd his wmleted 

~$~e~op.her in 7011 uad mere urtlvely 

ootleggw 8t the time of this 

A prohibition offioer, a deputy 8herlff, 

the kef of polioe, and a patrolman te8tlfled 

po8ltlvely that tha reput*tlon of the pumhaser, 

at the time of the sale in -on, was that he vu 

8 ‘bootlegger. * On the other haad, there was 

the testimony of on@ Yltness, Mother autowJbile 

dealer vho had sold one of the I&es e 6cU?, th8t 

he did not know of this reputbtlon. 
ilonorable Tar Se8y, pa&e 4 

“Considering th8t HurQn 18 BOt 8 large 

plaoe and therefore Mtters of ganaral knowledge 

oould roarcely eso8pe the rttentlon of 8 urahant 

who had lived there ill of his life and been 

engaged in bullliIe88 for seven years, the oourt 

WAS in no ulse bound to belleve th8 testinony of 

O'Weal that he had never haam of the reputatlon 

of C. A. be. Ubue tha queatlon requlrlng 

proof involves 8 state of knoV&dge or of ml&, 

triers of fast ju8tly relf upon oiroumtbnbes 

mhlab oould shov knovledge or rtate of rind 

r8th4r than upon the bare st8t4nent of the lntensted party himself. WrO it 18 8hOVn by 

l vldanoe, vhloh tha trial oourt believea, that 

the purahaser h8d the fen4ral raputatlon in a 

8~11 tom of b ein& l bootlegger' at the tlma 

of the creation of the lien, tha llener oannot 

bs held to have ocmaltulvely l ot8bllshed laok of 

notlue merely by te8tlfybq that ti did not than 

knou Qf suoh bualness or of ruab reput8tlon. 

Uh4re suah a ret of olxomstaaee8,18 sham by the 

evldanae, It is for tha trial oourt to datermine 

vhathar th8 llenor did oc did not have knouledge 

Of 8uOh bWin*SS OP &‘OpUt~tiOXl Uld 8Wh klWll&d438 

votid ZM notloe vfthln t&a above statute. zb 

burdenof proof is upontha lionor toestabll8h 

laok of notlo thitti stat.8 V. ih8 DO&8 

Coupe, etc., 1' D. G. ) I.3 F. (Pd) 1Olgj United 

St&es v. Qna Ii. Y. Shaw Automobile Taxi, eta*, 

(0. C.) 272 P. 4 1, 

St&es (C. C. A. 3 

and ZIholUday v. Ilnlted 

25 8. (24) 372, 374." 

For other aue8 holdlngth8tthe burden is ontha 

o~i8mnttoe8tab~ahthathi8 lien is bonafide andVU !aada 

vlthout notice that the vehl6le vas to be rued in vlolatfng 

th8 liquor laws, see The llarbour Srader, 42 Fed. (2d) 858, 

and U. S. v. Bailey, 42 ied. (ad) 908. 

A& Amg 

BY 

B. O.Pharr 

EOPrdb ASSiStAnt