Court Opinion

ID: 8638546
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:49:17.86814+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:49.865755
License: Public Domain

WAITE, Circuit Justice.
The books of a distiller, kept in obedience to the requirements of the statute, are, so tc speak, quasi records. They are intended for use as much by the government as the distiller. They constitute part of the machinery 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 distillery, and with the means of detecting frauds. They are to be preserved two years for that purpose, and are to be produced for the inspection of the proper government officials whenever demanded. They are, in a sense, part of the distillery 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 therein, or an omission to make such entries as the law requires, or a refusal to produce them upon proper demand, will subject the distillery to forfeiture The possession of the books in this case was not obtained by means of any judicial proceeding. The seizure was not by virtue of any warrant issued by a court or judicial officer, but upon an order 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 government. They were no more excluded by this statute from use as evidence, on account *854oí the manner in which they were obtained, than were the tuba ci other apparatus seized at the same time.
[For an action of debt against M. & E. Myers, to recover $47,800, claimed for taxes due and unpaid, see Case No. 15,846.]
This case is entirely different from that of U. S. v. Hughes [Case No. 15,419], decided by Judge Blatchford, in the Southern district of New York. There the warrant of seizure was issued by a judge and . made re-tumable to the court (14 St. 547, § 2). The evidence obtained consisted exclusively of private books and papers, wnich were in no sense whatever public.- They were excluded because they had been obtained under a warrant issued in a judicial proceeding by a judge to a marshal, returnable with the papers, etc., to the judge for his judicial action. Here, as has been seen, the boo'-s were public books, kept for the purposes of evidence, and intended for use as well by the government as the distiller. The United States have the right to demand their production without judicial protest for all purposes connected with the revenue liabilities of the distillers or the distilleries.
We think the district court erred in excluding the testimony, and the judgment must for this reason be reversed. It is unnecessary now to consider any other questions presented by the record, as upon another trial, with additional evidence, the court may be able to find the facts more specifically and definitely than they appear in- the present record.
The case is remanded for a new trial.