New-York tribune., 1874-11-19
THE COURTS.
HE AMENDED FORFEITURE LAW.


NECESSITY OF PROVING THE ELEMENT OF iNIANI
TO DEFRAUD THE GovERNMENT-FiRsr CASE
UNDER THE NEW ACT.
Section 10 of the act of June %, 1874, pro-
yides that in all suits TO enforce the forfeiture OF any
goods or TO the value thereof by reason OF any
violation the provisions Of the Customs Revenue laws
1t shall be the duty Of the Court on the a 10 SUD-
NIT 10 the ury as distinct and separate proposition
whether the alleged done with an actual In
tent 10 deraud United States and to require upon
such proposition. special finding by such jury Or If
such be tried by the Court without jury 1t shall
be duty Of the Court pass upon and decide such
proposition O distinct and separate finding OF fact
and in such unless intent TO deiraud shall be so
found no ne penalty or forfeiture shall be imposed"
Under the act Of l79 which in force till the passage
Of the act of June a. 1874 the question of intent could
be raised and II enough TO work forfeiture OF
goods IL they landed without permit ana wlth-
out appearing upon the permit The case OF the oni'ed
States against three trunks of kid gloves alleged 10 nave
been smuggled, valued at $1,000, and claimed by samp
Leroy excites considerable interest because IL Is
the rst arising the act allowing the question
OF intent TO be raised.
The trial of that resumed yesterday IN 'ho
United States District Court before Judge Batchiofu
In his opening remarks to the jury, Mr. Clarke OF 'ho
firm Of Stanley, Brown Clarke, counsel ior Tue
defense said that Mr. Leroy had in none of his acts
concerning the gloves any intent to deraud the Gov
ernment and that without his faut they happened 70
be landed without permit. and without appearing
upon the manifest. by being accidentally mixed with
the baggage of the the city OF Chester
"Mr Leroy never" said the counsel offered money TO
any for the purpose OF securing the entry OF the
gloves free OF duty"
The first testimony for the defense the deposition
the claimant who is Ill leave his house. 1t
substantially corroborated the statement made by Mr..
Clarke. Assistant United States District Attorney
Smith then read the testimony on cross-examinaton
.fy,erV nf
that the trunks were landed by the officer without a
permit that the claimant said nothing to the officer
them nnt he going to break them opep when
he gave MIN the Keys ana sad ne was ready 10 pay the
duty the gloves that he had regular invoice for
them and that lac supposed every thing
john b. vanarsdae, clerk in the Custom.house, pro-
duced what purported TO be trpcate invoice OF the
gloves from Hamburg and in reply TO question by the
Court stated that record Of Invoices was Kept but
that they filed away by themselves. The Court
then ntmated that 10 record OF invoices was kept it
he. Mr.. Saith remarked that the sending on Of a
trpcate invoice to the Customhouse ddinot in and Of
Itself show good faith the part of the importer and
was no safeguard against smuggling. Ihe Court sad
Daniel Leroy, a brother OF the claimant Hugo Bern
Leroy, another brother OF the CLAIMANT. also testified
Robert Leroy crosscXamination, SAID that lie had
been around the CustomEouse great deal, where he
introduced 10 great mGuy cOOnels, majors, and
generals" who were always ready to drink, smoke,
with military titles CustOmhonse officials the wit
said lie under the impression that they were
This closed the testimony for the defense. and Mr
Smith called II. G. Potts. Superintendent OF the freight
department Of the Inman steamship Company, AS re-
butug witness the question OF interest. He testi
fed hat the City OF Chester had no bill of adng for the
gloves Mr. Smith then offered TO show that three days
after the gloves ii, the claimant went to the
office of that Company and asked 10 have the manifest
of the CITY OF Chester amended so that the gloves would
appear upon Mr.. Clarke objected tue ground OF
mmateriaIty, and the Court sustained the objection.
l. {. NOdyne. CustOmhose Inspector testified, IN re-
Duta that tic cinant when ne arrived in the CITY OI
Chester aid no. tell him that he had any merchandise
with hln. Geo. {. KIRBY, the officer who seized the
gloves, and others Hdty contradcied tue claimants
testimony relative TO the landing OF the gloves. Tns
closed the evidence the and NJ Clarke SAID that
he should The Court 10 submit the 10 the jury
under section G Of the act OF June o. 1874 and Instruct
them that they cannot find verdict cOndemning the
gloves unless satisfied that, III landing them the claim
ant intended to dcfTaud tDO Government Mr.. Smith
replied that, while there had been technical forfeiture
OF tue goods, tie question IN the was under the
law, OF intent aud after some further discus
sion the Court adjourned TIL to-day.