The northern tribune. [volume] (Bath, Me.) 1847-1855, 1848-01-13

not take goods under fishing license. Barnes
is by trade sail maker, and has heretofore
been interested in two vessels which were en-
gagged in coasting. He has also bought and
sold small fishing vessels and pleasure boats.
1t was in proof that fishermen which came to
Portland were in the habit of taking their out
fits there"
On the 9Th of September the Secretary re-
mitted the forfeiture on the payment of costs,
and the warrant of remission was transmitted
TO the Attorney OH the 20th. This having
been filed in court, on the 30th an order was
made for the restoration of the property to the
claimant, and precept issued to the Marshall
to carry it into execution. The Deputy Mar
! shall i'll his return on the back of the precept,
| stated that he called on the 9th of October and
demanded of the Deputy Collector the prop
erty, but the Collector being absent he refused
to deliver it, and on the 30th he called on the
Collector at the custom house, and again de-
manded the property and he refused to deliver
it, and he returned the writ in no part salts
fed.
Upon the Goth of September the Secretary
wrote to the Attorney requesting him to re-
turn the warrant of remission. The ATTORNEY
in reply informed him that it having been filed
in court and become part of the record, it
was not in his power to return it. And on
the 4th of October, the Secretary again wrote
to the Attorney, stating that he had requested
the warrant to be returned "for the purpose of
revoking it, as on full examination of the
case, relief ought not to be granted to Mr..
Barnes" On the 18th of October, the Attor-
ney filed motion for an order to the Mar.
shall to stay the execution of the writ of res
toration and to return it unexccuted. The
Circuit Court being then in session and re-
naming SO until the last of the month, the
parties were heard on the motion on the 4th
of November.
Haines, DIST. Atty, for the U. S., and Gen.
Fessenden for the claimant s5.s.
The following are the points Of law ruled in
the case: .,,..... sa..S.-.
A remission Of a forfeiture by the Secretary Of
the Treasury, under the act of March 8,
1897, CHI 10, granted before libel or in
formation has been filed, operates directly
to revest the right of property and posses
sion in the petitioner, and the Collector, on
his presenting the warrant of remission. is
bound to restore it.
But after the filing of libel or information,
The property is in the custody of the law,
and the Collector is the keeper of the Court.
The remititur being filed in Court it is bar
to further proceedings to enforce the for
fixture, and the court will direct the suit 10
be dismissed and issue precept to restore
the property. But the property being in
the custody of the court, the Collector can
not restore the possession without an order
Of the court.
If the remission is on the payment of costs,
this is condition precedent, and the remis-
sion is imperative until the costs are paid.
A tender of the COSTS after reasonable time
allowed for taxing them, is equivalent to ac
tual payment to revest the right of property
and possession. a neglect OF the Collector
seasonably to furnish the attorney with the
cost of seizure and custody will not defeat
or suspend the right of the claimant to the
possession of the property.
The Secretary has the power after aremitttur
has been granted and communicated to the
claimant, to revoke the warrant
If the remission is free and unconditional, the
power of revocation continues after the re-
mittitur is filed, and an order of restoration
passed until the precept is finally executed
by delivery of the property into the pos