States cour.t.s,. .,
he is entitled to his mileage, notwithstanding the fact that it is out of this state and district, and is' more than 100 miles away from the place for the holding of the court. U. S. v. Sanborn, 28 Fed. Rep. 299. Let . the order be prepared
, . , :, C ' ' .. ,
UNITED' STATES 11.
Two HUNl>RED :
,"C!Ji6trict Cour'])·. SO'llthOq.rfilina. January 24.1889.) ' ... , ." .
When prop.erty afloat is brought ashore in contravention of the revenue J l'",l,aw$, ,of$e States, it cannot be unless was done with to defraud the United States on the part of the owner, or of AA.rson;sc.ting under his authority; <;lrwh? is the agent of the owner. or ot die person froplwhom the o:w;ner(!.erlves title. . 2. SAME. When property aBoat is feloniously taken from the possession of the owner, and is brought ashpre in contravention of the laws of the United States. and then seized by the ·oflicers ofcus'toms. it will not be forfeited as against the true owner. ,.. '
,·IpformatioI\ ,ut:lder Sections 4, Rev St. 'H.'.It. De SaU881J,re, Asst. U. S. Dist. Atty. 'SmJjtM &: a.n4 Bryan &: Bryan, for claimant.
, :8moNToN'1 J. '. The'facts ot'this caSe, all found by the testimony, are bark Swaren came to this port from Bremen, with ,article. She was duly entered in the An inspector wen.t .aboard of her. She discharged her .at the, wharf. of the Etiwan. Phosphate Company, the owners of ,cargo. TheJDB.ster and insJ)ector reported that the cargo was fully !tisGharged. T4e vessel left .theEtiwan wharf, ,and dropped down the I3tream a mile and a half, opposite to Marshall's wharf. While positiQu, at night, in small boats, the 208 bags of kainit in question brought from the ship to the wharves, and concealed in the city or'Oharleston. This was done with intent to unlawfully appropriate property. of thE; Ethyan Phosphate Company. Thekainit was officers of the, govyrnmeIlt, and this libel and information The 'E,tiwan Phosphate C01l1pany file their claim as owners of The question, ,then, is, where property aflOat is unlawfql1y ink.en from the possession of its owner, and ashore in of the revenue of the United States, .must the propei'tibe . ' the owner, remanded to his application to ..... ; . and . . " . .
IN BE CHAPMAN. ' "
the treasury depal'tment ful' relief? Whateverdoubt may have existed on this subject,it has been removed by the act of 1874, (18 U.S. St. at Large, 189,; which niakes an actual intention to an essential question in SUlts to enforce forfeiture under the custom laws. Sinn v. U. S., 14 Elatehf. 550; Lewey v. U. S., 15 Blatchf. 1. The question of fact which I must pass upon is "whether the alleged acts were-done with an actual intention to defraud the United States." 1 Supp. Rev. St. p. 80, § 16; The Purism-rna Concepcion, 24 Fed. Rep. 358. This means an actual intent on the part of the owner; or of some person acting under' his authority, or being, his agent, or under whom he derives title." U. S. v. Diamonds, 30 Fed. Rep. 364. In this case the master and stevedore of the vessel had informed the claimant that all the cargo was discharged. Without the knowledge of the claimant, they concealed 208 bags of kainitin the ship. They left claimant's wharf and service, and then clandestinely furtively sent the kainit ashore. the circumstances stated, the claimants cannot be charged with the, consequences of this act, so as to forfeit their property; But the action of the collector in seizing this kainit was ,founded on probable cause. This 4Ction also brought to the' knowledge of the true owner the .fact that his property had been stOlen, and preserved it for him. ,While, the delay in filing the information ami libel prevents me from charging, thekainit with the heavy bill for storage, it should pay the items, of. labor, $2.40, and of drayage, $10.50. So, also, the filing of the information discovered the facts which exonerate the claimant. Upon 'payment of these and of the costs of court, let the stipulation heretofore' entered into by claimant be released. ' ,
(OWeuit (Jouf't, N. D. G8Q1'gia.
Under Rev.St.U" S;§1117. providing that "no person under tbeage of'l , years, shaH be enl,iste,d ,or, mustered iuto the military s,e,rVIC,e of the 'Unite,d States without the written consent of his parent/il or guarqians. provi$dJhat such minor has such parents or guardians entitled to his custody and control," . the enlistment of a minor without the written consent 0.1 hispareDt , ian. is invaW;l, and of no legal effect. and the invalidity may be claimed by . the minor himself, or after attaining majority.' ·. '. ,
Appliqation for Habeas Coryus. On appeal froOl,d,istrtct c,our,t,,; ,', by J. Q. Chapman for a writ ,ofha.oeaBCoryus·. ,;qIi thQ hearing is the district court, Judge NEWMAN deUv:eredthe following opinion:' '''It appears itlthis case that the petitioner, J. C. Chapman, etilillted i,n .the twenty years "a<nd eight' trlbnths United Statesarm:fat Atllinta:, old. He is now nearly twenty-three years of age. Some'.live 'or si*"'eeks