The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-08-13
THE SPRING VALLEY D1sTILLERY.

Judgment OF the United States District
Court Reversed-A New Trial Ordered.
Judge Woodruff rendered his decision yesterday
In the case ofThe United States plaintiff in error,
Us. The Spring Valley Dstilery and other property,
Elijah Brown, claimant, defendant In error The
hstillery at Spring Valley, IN Rockland county, N.
T., with the land on which it stands, and certain
land used for ingress to and egress from the same
and also the stills and other apparatus, tools,
implements and instruments used. fit and intended
Tor use in the distilatiOn OF spirits, were, to-
gether with certain distilled spirits and raw ma
terlals for dstillaton, seized on the Esd of jan
nary, 1873, for alleged violation OF the internal
revenue law relating to distilers, distilla-
ton and the taxes, &C.. imposed thereon.
Upon such seizure the information in behalf
Of the United States in this cause was fled and
condemnation of the property prayed for, as for.
feited by reason of such violations. Elijah Brown
pnly appeared herein as claimant, setting up his
ownership Of the dstillery and and its fixtures
and the real estate seized in fee, and his owner
ship of the TOOLS Implements apparatus and instru-
ments (other than fxtures) provided for, used and
Intended for use in disting upon the premises
but making no claim to the distilled spirits or to
raw materials seized. On the trial IN the District
Court evidence was given showing that Tor more
than three years prior to the seizure the CLAIMANT
Elijah Brown, was the owner in fee of the dstilery
ana fixtures and real estate seized and claimed by
him, and the owner OF the movable tools. imple-
plements and instruments intended to be used in
the business OF distiation. and which implements,
NC, were seized as stated Evidence was also
given tending to show that on the Sd OF November,
1870 lease of the lot OF land which the distery
is situate with the distillery buildings thereon and
the machinery and fixtures, was made and de-
livered by the claimant to the copartnership drm
man, SIMON Kahnweiler and Elijah Brown-the
claimant Elijah BROWN, to carry on the dstillery
business Tor five years. NJ. Newman & Co. did no
business under that cOpartnership, but in Septem-
Der, 1871, the interest of Newman Co. was trans
TERED by the claimant to Marcus Newman. a rail-
road was constructed across the claimants land to
admit OF ingress to and egress from the distIery,
and this was done with the knowledge and consent
prove that Mr.. Brown was not aware OF the alleged
fraudulent nature OF the dstillation carried on at
the distillery and that he could not legally be held
responsible for the act OF his lessee, If that act was
In any way fraudulent To the charge OF Judge
B!atcniord certain exceptions were taken bytne
counsel for the government, the Judge holding that
there could be no condemnation OF the property OF
the claimant unless the jury were satisfied that he
had guilty knowledge OF the fraudulent dlstillation
charged to nave been carried on by Newman.
Judge Woodruff writes heightened and elaborate
opinion on the question at issue. He states that
40 question OF ownership is made, and that it is
expected that the owner OF property will see to the
use made of it at his peril. Words might be null
hpied on the need of stringent provisions to pro-
tect the government from frauds and evasions OF
the law, ana the slight restraint that would exist
when only the forfeiture OF building at will or
at suaerance, from month to month, or
from year to year, was all that is to he
apprehended The learned Judge says that the
trial below proceeded upon an erroneous inter-
probation OF the law governing the rights OF the
parties; and that it may not be OF any materiality
TO discriminate between fixtures and movable ar
tcles, tools, implements and instruments used in
the distery. 1t is probable that the instruction
to the jury to treat the latter real estate for the
purposes of the trial grew out OF the other nstruc-
ton that the property OF the owner could not be
forfeited unless the owner was q party to the
fraud, or in completely with the distiller therein
1t is proper to say that If be mace in which
tools, Implements instruments and personal
property found on the premises are forfeited, see
no ground on which, by calling them real estate, or
part o: the dstllery apparatus, they can be with
drawn and saved. The Judgment must he reversed,
and new trial ordered.