The New York herald., 1869-05-27
BROOKLYN CITY.
TIE COURTS.
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT CuuaT.


Important Decision-A Government Onicial
Can Recover as an Informcr-Judge Blatch-
ford's Decision Disresarded.
Before Judge Benedict.
The United States us. Frederick C2asseit-The
following decision was promulgated yesterday. 1t
will be found to be directly the reverse OF the
decision OF Judge Blatchford, OF the Southern dis
trict upon the same question:
The cause comes before the court upon motion
ing from fine imposed upon the defendant, Frede-
rick Chassell. The proceeding against Chasse was
ilat crlminai proceeding upon an Indictment found
against MIN Tor carrying on the business OF q retail
required by law, upon which Indictment he was
court, which was paid, constituting the fund
in question. One-haif Of tins fund is now claimed
his claim Wood has produced q certincate OF the
District Attorney to the effect that he is the person
who lrst IN informed OF tae cause matters and things
In the above entitled cause was procured; to which
he has added his own oath, showing that he first in
the penalties were based and also that he has no
knowledge or Information that any other claim was
such matters and things On the part OF the govern
ment there Is produced the written admission Of
parted to the District Attorney while in the discharge
Of his official duty as assistant assessor Of the Third
Collection district Of this State Upon this state OF
facts single question has been raised whether the
circumstance that Wood obtained the information
on the communication Of which ne bases his claim
as tnformer while IN the discharge Of his official
duty as assistant assessor deDars him from claiming
share In the fine as infOrmer. My opinion Is that
does not and ana for tn the following reasons was
might become entitled to receive informer's share
by reason OF information given by him TO the COL
lector OF customs; and was not debarred from that
right by the fact that he was employed by the gov
ernment In the enforcement of the revenue laws un.
DAVIS r., S7O., This decision was aoauesced in and
has since controlled the distribution Of forfetures
under the customs laws. II the early provisions OF
clearly an intention on the part Of the Legislature to
continue thus feature Of the customs laws In the laws
h f{aa sscon aaqa maRss ins fs; Of
duty OF collector Of internal revenue to prosecute
for the recovery Of any sums forfeited BY the act
and declares that all fines, penalties and orfeitures
shall be sued for in the name Of the United States
or Of the collector, and that one moiety OF the
who, II q collector or deputy collector, shall
first inform OF the cause matter or thing whereby
This provision was re-enacted in the act OF 1868
10th section Of the act Of June So 1854 BY the act
OF March B. 1865 section 179 Of the act Of 1854 is
amended by striking out the words "if a collector
deputy collector" and the noteso edition Of this
tributed, declares that thereafter moiety OF ali
fines, penalties and forfeiures is tobe paid to the
normer, ''whe.her officer OF the revenue or private
citizen." THESE enactments indicate an unmis.
taxable intention to permit officers OF the revenue to
participate as iniormers in the distribution Of
subsequent acts disclose no change of intention,
but have always left this right open be claimed by
knowledge that revenue officers were constantly
being paid large rewards as informers. and In the
their right to claim such rewards There is no rea.
sOnabe doubt therefore that the Legislature intended
by the present act-what seems to be said by the
act-namely. that any person, whatsoever, may share
in fine, penalty or forfeiture, provided it be made
to appear that such person first informed OF the
Gne penalty or forfeiture "neaeIy sSai saSe saSe
been been incurred. The Intention 'al' to include Jude
the act and enable them to participate in the distri
button OF fines, penalties and f0rfetures Is reasona
be For ~ TINS % mode az o. stimulating the zeal Of ON
common practice in revenue laws and the small
fixed compensation which Is attached to many or
supposed that such compensation could be Increased
by rewards Of diligence. AS there exists in the
sons who may become informers 80 also there
is no limitation in regard to theu method by
which the information nn saai have been acquired
informer by reason OF any Information which con-
n orsans o s s
vided such Information has not only been acquired
but also properly impaired. To whom impaired the
formation must be impaired to some one authorized
to, and who does thereupon take oricial action to
feiture, which the information discioses to have
been incurred, ana the Information must be
s acea nnan Wa iae mnas intention asa having
formation SO impaired. These restrictions can
be fairly gathered from the words Of the act and
am unable to see that any other limitations can be
reasonably inferred from anything IN the act con-
tained According to this construction OF the law
Il clearly appears that the present petitioner is enti.
tied to dstrlbutive share in the fine in question
for II appears that OF his own motion and by his own
diligence he acquired Information which, beng |
acted on BY the proper officer. led to the conviction
OF the offender. This Information he impaired to |
the District Attorney, who, and who alone was |
authorized TO- institute. the proceedings which
resulted in the imposition OF the line, and
he SO impaired his information. with the
stituted upon his information, and his was the
first information so impaired. These iacts unat-
tended with any counterbalancing circumstances
according to my OF the law entltIe him to be
adjudged to be the legal nf0rmer entitled to dis
tributive share OF the fund in court In thus dis
posing Of the case have not omitted to notice two
recent cases, arising under this same provision OF
law-CThe United States vs.. 100 barrels distilled
spirits, Int. Il. Rec, p 20 United States vs.. four
cutting machines, Int. II. Rec, p. 1852 But ind
nothing In the actual adJudcatious OF those cases
upon the facts OF these cases understand them
which leads me to different conclusion than that
10 which have arrived In this Case.
Ea00ALYy INTELLIGENCE.