The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1876-06-02

their legitimate power and effect. We con-
clude, therefore, that the acknowledgment
in this case before Garnett was sufficient to
authorize the record Of the deed to Con-
way. asiotE1-.; ss&aase. @ at..-na,..
ABOUT PROOF OF FRAUD.
The acknowledgment may, however, as
between these parties, be avoided for fraud
II established. But there is no proof Of
fraud. On the contrary, all parties agree
that the acknowledgment was freely and
fairly made in the belief that it was in all
respects sufficient to vest the title in the
trustee for the purposes specified.
The decree OF the District Court annul-
ling the deed is therefore reversed; but in
asmuch as the trustee named in the deed is
interested in the debt secured by the trust
the sale advertised by him should be en-
joined, and another trustee appointed to
execute the trust in that behalf. A decree
may be prepared In accordance with this
opinion ra:' .@@ 7,> i.r:... ss...t-E
The Case Of Myers's DistilIery.
The case OF the United States against q
distillery at Petersburg was, decided as fol-
lows: .,-.,f~ -. ...tc %. .
Section 1903 of the Revised Statutes pro-
vides that every distiller shall from, day to
day make, or cause to be made, in book
or books to be kept by him in such form as
the Commissioner OF internal Revenue may
prescribe, certain specified entries record
ing in detail his transactions ut the distil-
lcry. Section 1904 then provides that these
books 'shall always be kept at the distil-
lery, and be always open to the inspection
Of every revenue officer, f. and
whenever required shall be produced for
the inspection Of any revenue officer"
On the first day Of November, 1875, the
collector Of internal revenue for the second
collection district Of Virginia, acting under
special authority for that purpose from the
commissioner OF internal revenue, seized
the distilery, which is the subject matter OF
this action, for violation Of section 3257 Of
the Revised Statutes, and with it took pos.
session OF the books kept upon the premises
pursuant to the requirements OF section
1903. ..f.. . -...s@
TIE BOOKS IN EVIDENCE.
At the trial Of this suit in the District
Court, the United States, to maintain the
issue on their part, offered these books in
evidence, but the claimants objected to their
admissibility, upon the ground that they
had been obtained from the distillers by
means Of judicial proceeding. This OBJ
lection was based upon section $50 Of the
Revised Statutes, which is as follows:
"No pleading OF party, nor any discov-
cry or evidence obtained from any party or
witness by means of judicial proceeding in
this or any foreign country, shall be given
in evidence, or in any manner used against
him or his property or estate, in any court
Of the United States in any criminal proceed
ing, or for the enforcement OF any penalty
or forfeiture: provided, that this section
shall not exempt any party or witness from
prosecution and punishment for perjury
committed in discovering or testifying as
aforesaid"
The District Court sustained the obiec-
ton and excluded the evidence. To this
ruling the United States excepted in due
form upon the record, and the first question
presented for our consideration al scs upon
that exception. ..-.....
SUCH BOOKS QUASI RECORD
The books OF distiuer, kept in obedience
to the requirements Of the statute, are, so to
speak, quasi records. They are intended
for use as much by the Government as the
distiler They constitute part OF the ma
chinery which the law has provided for the
enforcement of the revenue laws. Their
object is to furnish the Government with
evidence of the daily business OF the distil-
lery, and with the means OF detecting frauds.
They are to be preserved two years Tor that
purpose, and arc to be produced for the
inspection OF the proper Government o1tl-
cials whenever demanded. They are, in a
sense, part of the distillcry itself, and as
much subject to inspection and use for the
purpose of securing the payment OF the
revenue as the building or any part of the
fixtures or apparatus. False entries there
in. or an omission to make such entries as
the law requires, or q refusal to produce
them upon proper demand, will subject the
distillery to forfeiture.
THE SEIZURE LEGAL.
The possession of the books in this case
was not obtained by means OF any judicial
proceeding. The seizure WIS not by virtue OF
any warrant issued by court or judicial
officer, but upon an order of one of the
executive departments OF the Government,
made in the legitimate exercise Of its powers
for the enforcement Of the laws. The books
were taken because found on the premises in
the place where the law required they
should be kept for the purposes of evidence
to be consulted and considered by the Go
yernment. They were no more excluded
by this statute from use rs evidence, on ac-
count Of the manner in which they were
obtained, than were the tubs or other ap-
paratus seized at the same time.
This case is entirely different from that Of
United States Us. Hughes (21 Internal Re-
venue Rec, '76), decided by Judge Blatch-
ford in the southern district of New York.
There the warrant OF seizure was issued by
a ajudee and made returnabe to the court ia
Statute, SAT, sec. y. The evidence obtained
consisted exclusively of private books and
rapers, which were in no sense whatever
public. They were excluded because they
had been obtained under warrant issued
in judicial proceeding by a Judge to q
marshal, returnabe with the papers, &C., to
the Judge for his judicial action.
RIGHTS OF THE GOVERNMENT.
Here, as has been seen, the books were
public books, kept for the purposes of EVIL
dence, and intended for use as we'll by the
Government as the distiller. The United
States have the right to demand their pro-
duction without judicial protest for all pur-
poses connected with the revenue llablll-
ties OF the distilers or the distilleries.
We think the District Court erred in eX-
cluding the testimony, and the Judgment
must for this reason be reversed. 1t is I'M
tions presented by the record, rs upon an
Court may be able to find the facts more spe-
cifcally and definitely than they appear in
the present record.
The case is remanded for q new trial.
Railroad Case.
The Chief Justice overruled the demurrer
Of defendants in the case Of Daniel II. Lon
don Us. The Washington City, Virginia
Midland and Great Southern Railroad Com
pany. The suit of Mr.. London is on ten
thousand-dollar bond issued by the Orange
~ a -