Case: The United States, Appellants, v. The Brig Neurea, her Tackle, &c., William Kohler, Claimant
Abbreviation: United States v. Brig Neurea
Decision Date: 1856-12
Docket Number: 
Citation: 19 How. 92
Volume: 60
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: The United States, Appellants, v. The Brig Neurea, her Tackle, &c., William Kohler, Claimant.
Judges: 
Pages: 92–96

Head Matter:
The United States, Appellants, v. The Brig Neurea, her Tackle, &c., William Kohler, Claimant.
"inhere a libel for information, praying the condemnation of a vessel for violating ■ . the-passenger law of the. United State's, states the offence in the -words of the Matute, it is'sufficient,
This was an .appeal from the District Court of the United States fot the northern district of California.
■ The case presented a general demurrer to the following libel for information:1
Ik- the- District Court of the United States, for the Northern District of . California. In Admiralty;
To the Non: Ogden Hof man, Jr.,. Judge of the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California: '
■ '.The libel of’-Samuel W. Inge, attorney of the United States for the northern district of California, who prosecutes on behalf óf'the said United States against the brig bTeurea, .and against all persons intervening for their interest therein, in. a cause of forfeiture, alleges and infomis as follows:
: T.- That'Richard P. Hammond, Esq., collector'of the customs for the district of San Francisco, heretofore/ to wit, on the thirty-first day of August, in the year of ourLprd eighteen hundred'and fifty-four, at the- port of ,San Francisco, and within the' northern district of California, on waters that are. navigable from the sea by vessels of ten,or more tons burden/ seized as- forfeited to, the use ¿fr the said- United States the: said brig- Keurea, being the. property ofr some person or pern, sons to> the: said-attorney unhhown. :
Si That one Kohler, master of the said brig Keurea, which is a .vessel owned wholly or in part by a subject or subjects.ofí the kingdom of Sweden, did on the first day of June, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and fifty-four, at. the foreign port of Hong Kong, in China, take on hoard said vessel two hundred and sixty-three passengers, which was a greater number of passengers than in the following proportion to the space occupied by them and ’appropriated for their use on hoard said vessel, and unoccupied by stores or other goods not being the personal luggage ¡pf such passengers, that is to .say, on the lower deck or platform, one passenger for every fourteen clear superficial feet of deck, with intent to bring said passengers to the United States of America, and did leave said port with the same; and afterwards, to wit, on the twenty-sixth day of August, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and fifty-four, aid bring the said passengers, being two hundred and sixty-three in number,- op board the said vessel, to the said port of. San EranciscO, within the jurisdiction, of the United States, and that the said passengers so taken on board of said • vessel, ánd brought into the United States as aforesaid, did exceed .the number which could be lawfully taken on board and brought into the United States as aforesaid, as limited by the first sectj on of the act of Congress approved February 22, 1847,: entitled “An act to regulate the carriage of passengers” “in merchant vessels,” to the number,Of twenty in the whole, in violation of the aqt of Congress of the United States in such cases made and provided, ana that by force and virtue of the said- acts of Congress, in such case made and provided, the said vessel became and is forfeited to the use of the said ■United States. ■ .
And the-said attorney saith, that by reason of all and singular the premises aforesaid, and by force of the statute in such case made and provided, the aforementioned vessel became and is forfeited tó the use of the. said United States.
Lastly, that all and singular the premises aforesaid are true, =and within the admiralty. and maritime jurisdiction of the United States.and of this court. . ^
. "Wherefore .the said attbmey prays the usual process and monition of this court'in this behalf to be made, and that all persons interested in the' said vessel may be cited. in general and "special.to answer the' premises, and all due proceedings 'being had, that the Baid vessel may be, for the causes aforesaid and other appearing, be condemned by the definitive sentence and decree of this court, as forfeited to the use of' thé said United States, according to the form of the .statute of the said United States in such case made and provided.
'-The act of Uongress referred to will be found in 9 Stat. at 'Dftrge, 127.. '
' The court below sustained the demurrer and dismissed the libel, from which decree the United States appealed.
It was argued for the United States by Mr. Gushinq, (Attor- ' ,ney General.)

Opinion:
Mr. Justice GRIER
delivered the opinion of the court.
The Swedish brig Nejirea was seized by the collector of customs at >San '.Francisco, as' forfeited to the United States under the 'passenger act of 1847. The record in this case exhibits thé libel for information, filed on behalf of the United States, a demurrer thereto by the claimant, and- a decree of the court below dismissing the libel. The appeal, therefore, brings under review' the question of the sufficiency of the libel.
The claimant sets forth the following grounds of demurrer:
'. 1. Thát the said libel states no sufficient cause of condern- nation of said ship.
2. Because the said libel states no offence against the laws of the United States.
3. Because the said libel , does not aver that the excess of passengers carried or imported on said ship- were so carried or imported on the lower deck of said brig, or the orlop deck thereof. '
-.4. Because the facts stated in said libel do not constitute a . violation of the passenger act of the United States of 1847, or any other law of the United States.
The first, second, and fourth, are but different forms of the same general assertion, "Ihat'the libel states no offence."
The thirds which is more specific, objects to the libel for want of an averment that the passengers were carried on the lower deck.
An information for forfeiture of a vessel need not be more technical in its language, or specific in its' description of the . , offence, than ah indictment. As a general rule, an indictment for 'a statute offence is sufficient, if it describe the offence in. the very words of- the statute. The exceptions to this rule aré, where the offences-created by. statute are analogous to certain' common-law felonies or misdemeanors, where the precedents require certain technical language, or where special averments .are necessary in the description of the particular offence, in order that the defendant may afterwafds protect himself under the plea of autrefois acquit or convict. (See on this subject United States v. Gooding, 12 Wheaton, 474.)
The offence created by the statute on which this libel is founded, has no 'analogy to any particular common-law crime; If, therefore, the libel sets forth the offence in.the words off the statute which creates it, with-sufficient certainty as fo the time and place of its commission, it is all that is necessaiy to put the claimant on his defence.
The- object of the act in question is the protection of the health and lives of passengers from becoming a prey to' the avarice of ship owners. In order to test the sufficiency of the libel, it will he necessary to set forth at length the two sections under which it was framed:
The first section provides, that no master "shall take on board such vessel, at any foreign port or place, a greater ram-; her of passengers than in the following proportion to the space occupied by them and appropriated to their use, and unoccupied by stores or other goods not being the personal baggage of such passengers, that is to say, on the lower deck or platform, one passenger for every fourteen clear superficial feet of deck, if such vessel is not 'to pass within the tropics during such voyage; but if such vessel is to pass within the tropics during such voyage, then one' passenger for every twenty such clear superficial feet of deck; and on the, orlop- deck, (if any,) one passenger for every .thirty such superficial feet in all cases, with.intent to bring such passengers into the United States of' .America, and shall leave such port, or place, with the same, and bring the same, or any number thereof, within the jurisdie-diction of the United States aforesaid, or if any such master of vessel shall take on hoard of his vessel, at any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States aforesaid, any greater number of passengers than the proportions aforesaid admit, with the intent to carry the same to any foreign port or place, every such master shall he deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon, conviction thereof before any circuit or district court of' the United States aforesaid, shall, for each passenger taken, on board beyond the above proportions, be fined in the sum of fifty dollars, and may also be imprisoned for any term not ex-ceéding one year: Provided, that this act shall not be construed to permit any ship or vessel- to cany more than two passengers to every five tons of such ship or vessel."
"Sec. 2. That if the passengers so taken on board such vessel, and brought into, or transported from, the United States aforesaid, shall- exceed the number limited by the lást section, to the number of twenty in the whole, such vessel shall be forfeited to the United States aforesaid, and be prosecuted and distributed as forfeitures are under the act to regulate duties on imports and tonnage."
blow, the. libel conforms strictly to the requirements of this act.
It avers, that the master " took on board the bTeurea at Hong Kong, in China, on the 1st of June, 1854, two hundred and sixty-three passengers. That this was a greater number .than in proportion to the space occupied by them, viz: "on -.the lower deck or platform" one passenger for every fourteen clear superficial feet, with intent to bring said passengers to . the United States. That he afterwards, viz: on the 26th day of August,'did bring them on said vessel to the port of San Eran-cisco. That the passengers so taken on board and brought into the United States did exceed the number which could be lawfully taken, to the number of twenty in the whole, &e.
The act does not require an averment that the passengers "were carried or imported on the lower deck or the orlop deck."
The libel sets forth every averment of time, place, numbers, intention, and act, in the very words of the statute. It was not necessary to specify the precise measurement of the deck, or to show by a mathematical calculation its incapacity; nor to state the'sex, age, color, or nation, of the passengers; nor how ':'many more than twenty their number exceeded the required area on deck. All these particulars were matters of evidence, which required no special averment of them to constitute.a complete and technical description of the offence.
The decree of the District Court is therefore reversed, and record remitted for further proceedings.