Los Angeles herald., 1890-10-21
7HE CLAIMANTS WIN.
Judge Ross Decides the Fruit
vale Winery Seizure Case.
The Purchasers of the Property
Win the Suit.
Some Law Points of Interest to Wine
Men and Distillers.
A Celebrated Case at Last Ended-Messrs.
Brousseau g. Hatch and McPike
Win an Important Suit.

A case of unusual Importance to vine-
yardists and distillers was decided by
United States District Judge Ross, yes
terday morning, and some new points in
the revenue laws were handled in way
which, from their Importance, ought to
be brought to the attention of all read
ers, but lack of space forbids presenta-
ton of more than synopsis Of the opin-
ion.
It may be remembered that on the
second day of November, 1888, the
Fruitvale Winery and Distillery, at
Fresno. was seized by the collector
of internal revenue. for an alleged
infraction of the revenue laws. That
subsequently the United States Attol-
ney, Mr.. Denis, filed libel against the
property seized, and that the act on his
part was followed by the Indictment and
conviction of w. More Young, the
former secretary of the Fruitvale COM
apany, for completely in the alleged
frauds committed. Before the seizure
of the second of November took place,
however, Messrs. Wolters, Helm, Aus
tin and Kaufman, purchased the dis
tillery property of the Fruitvale COM
pany, without notice, as they claimed, of
the frauds which had taken place prior
to their purchase, in the year 1887
Wolters and Helm being called upon to
file an answer to the libel of the govern
that w. More Young at the time he was
fod hu 10 ir1r hn TTv,s< fol
States court, for his fraudulent acts
while secretary, was an owner of the
property seized, and that the govern
ment by seeking to forfeit the property,
was proceeding to punish him twice for
the same ofense, that is to say, by in
generating him, and by taking away his
property. The novelty of this defense
drought forth a demurrer from United
States Attorney Willoughby Cole, and it
was this special defense and the demur-
rer which called forth the very able
opinion of District Judge Ross, part of
which is printed below. Mr.. Walters,
the only one of the claimants present,
looked as if he had just received par
don for some grave offense, as the last
words of the judge fell upon the atten-
tive ears of all present, as they practic-
ally lifted the hands of the government
from about $40, 900 worth of his property.
His attorneys, Messrs. Brousseau and
Hatch of this city, and Henry G. McPike
of San Francisco, were apparently calm
and serene, as it was their wont to be in
the courtroom, but close observer
might have discerned that Mr.. Wolters
had some company in his exhilaration.
This was pardonable in the attorneys
mentioned, for they certainly conducted
this most Important case with great
skill and ability.
Judge Ross began his opinion by first
citing the different sections of the re-
vised statutes under which the seizure
was made, the libel filed and the indict-
ment found. He then gave history of
the situation of the parties and the SUBJ
ject OF the action in rem, succinctly
stated from the records, and then passed
to the merits of the separate defense, of
the former conviction Of Young as a bar
to the suit. Upon this point we print
the opinion verbatim, as it decides
some questions never before passed
upon by any judge in the United States.
1t is as follows
ITO this defense the district attorney,
on behalf of the government, demurred,
and the question of it's insufficiency-
accepting as true the facts alleged-is
now for decision.
"The indictment against Young was
based on section 3451 of the revised
statutes, which is as follows
Every person who Stimulates or falsely
or fraudulently executes or signs any
bond, permit, entry or other document
required by the provisions of the inter
nal revenue laws, or by any regulation
IN, rhD
procures the same to be falsely or fraud
in or connives at such execution thereof,
shall be imprisoned for term not less
than one year nor more than five years
and the property to which such false or
fraudulent instrument relates shall be
forfeited"
1.-THE case of the United States vs..
Mckee, Dillon, 1873. was civil action
brought by the government to recover
the liability denounced by section 1926
: Of the revised statutes of double the
amount of taxes of which the United
/; States had been defrauded by the unlaw-
fui removal of whiskey from the distil-
leries of various persons, in which re-
!. m0vals it was charged the defendant
aided and abetted.
The defendant interposed two de-
fences.
1. That he had been heretofore in
Sdipted. convicted and punished for the
same offences.
2. That for those offences he had
been pardoned by the president. To
that answer the government demurred.
Mr.. Justice Miller, with whom con-
CURED Judge Dillon, in overruling the
demurrer held, that if the specific acts
of removal on which the civil suit was
brought were the same which were
proved in the indictment, the former
conviction and judgment constituted q
bar in the civil suit, on the ground that
our laws forbid that any one shall be
twice punished for the same crime or
misdemeanor. That case was cited with
apparent approval by the supreme court
In Coffey vs. United States, 116 q: s:
As. The circumstance that the civil
suit was under one section Of the re-
wised statutes and the criminal prosecu-
&ion nnder another was not considered
TO affect the question, nor is any reason
perceived why it should. The decision
was based upon the averments that both
proceedings were for the same acts OF
transactions. If the government can
not be permitted to maintain civil ac-
sfion for the ecoyery of money denounced