Court Opinion

ID: 8639047
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:50:08.512058+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:59.832885
License: Public Domain

MILLER, Circuit Justice.
This is a civil action brought by the government against William McKee, to recover the liability which section 3296 of the Revised Statutes denounces, of double the amount of taxes of which the United States has been defrauded by the unlawful removal of whiskey from the distilleries of divers persons, at different times, within this district.
The petition charges that in all these removals the defendant, in the language of the statute, aided and abetted.
To each and all of these charges defendant makes two defences.
1. That he has been indicted in this court, convicted, and punished for the same of-fences.
2. That for these offences he has been pardoned by the president, and he exhibits a copy of the pardon with his plea.
To this answer the plaintiff demurs.
In determining the sufficiency of both these defences, it is necessary to ascertain clearly the nature of the offence charged in the indictment foi which the defendant has been punished; for if it is the same offence, as defined by law, for which he is now prosecuted, and is also for the same transactions, our laws forbid that he or any one else shall be twice punished for the same crime or misdemeanor.
. In the former trial he was indicted for a conspiracy to defraud the government of the United States out of taxes due on whiskey distilled by the several parties mentioned, and that in pursuit of that conspiracy other parties than defendant—who were his co-conspirators—did unlawfully remove said whiskey.
It thus appears that the whiskey was actually removed; that by this removal the government was defrauded of its taxes; that defendant was one of the several persons who conspired together to do this act, though it was not charged that he personally took part in the acts of removal.
In the present case, while he is not charged with a conspiracy by that name, he is charged with aiding and abetting this same removal, and, if convicted, will be punished for the same removals.
We are all of opinion that his joining the conspiracy, of which the purpose was to remove the whiskey, was aiding and abetting the removal which was effected by means of that conspiracy.
How can a man more effectually aid an unlawful act than by counseling and advising its execution, and giving his influence to its support, and the best energies of his mind to devise the safest and surest means of its accomplishment? If three men agree to compass the death of another, and one of them puts their joint purpose into effect, do not the other two aid and abet the murder? and is not such an agreement also a conspiracy to murder the victim?
We are, therefore, of opinion that if the specific acts of removal on which this suit is brought are the same which were proved in the indictment, the former judgment and conviction is a bar to the present action; and we are also of opinion that the allegations of the answer are sufficient averments that they are the same. If the counsel for the United States thinks they are not the same, he can take issue on that plea, and have the issue tried.
Little need be said about the plea of pardon, because if the indictment and sentence of McKee were for the same offences, both in law and in fact, for which this action is brought, it is conceded that the pardon is also a bar to the civil suit. If it is not conceded, we have no doubt that it is so. As it stands in connection with the averments of the answer, we hold it to be a good plea. Whether it would be a good bar to an action for acts not included in that prosecution, but of the same character, we need not now decide, though I have, personally, a strong opinion that it would.
The demurrer is overruled.
Demurrer overruled.