1JlUTED STATES II. TEN' HUNDRED AND SIXTY' TINS OF OPIUM:
States. Upon these issues a trial has been had, the testimony in this case being the same as that taken in the case referred to against the steam-ship Walla Walla, no additional proofs being offered on either side. The claimant has not, to the knowledge of the 'Court, appeared in person before the court at any time. He has not testified as to any facts within his knowledge as to when or how he acquired the ownership of the opium. For aught that appears, he may have bought the right of a smuggler to this property, since its discovery and seizure by the United States officers. It may be fairly assumed, however, that if he is the bona fide owner, and if the merchandise is not in fact contraband, that he could easily have shown, by competent proof, where and· by whom it was manufactured, when it was imported into the United States, if it ever was imported, and when, from whom, and in what manner he acquired ownership of it; and he should at least offer some explanation of the peculiar circumstances as to the opium being packed in casks, and shipped under the false designation of "sauerkraut" and "skid grease." Having failed to do this, or to make any attempt to do so, I think he has failed to establish, by a preponderance of the testimony, his right to recover the property, which he is bound to do to his claim under the provisions of section 909, Rev. St., which casts the burden of proof upon him; there being an abundance.of testimony to show probable cause for the seizure. A decree will therefore be awarded, condemning the opium as forfeited to the United States, according to the prayer of the information.
U'NlTED8'rATEB II. TEN HUNDRED AND SIXT'I' TINS OF OPIUJL
(D£etrlct Coun, D. Washington, N. D. Jsnus17 19, 189L)
At . P. H. Winston, U. S. Atty., and P. C. Sullivan, Asst. U. S. Atty.
A. B. Coleman. for claimant.
HANFORDt J. What has been said In the precedinR case Is equally applicable In this case, and determinative of it. For the same reasons there stated, a decree will be awarded in this case condemning the opium as forfeited to the United States, in accordance with the prayer of the information.
FEDERAL REPORTER I
UNITED STATES V. MANION.
Oowrt, D. Washington, N. D. December 10, 1890.)
1.. PERJURy-RULES AND REGULATIONS OF LA.ND·OFFICE. Rules and regulations issued by the commissioner of the generalland-office, pursl1ant to section 2351, Rev. St., do not have force as laws of the United States, within the meaning of section 5392, Rev. St., relating to perjury. 2. BAMlll-OATH BEFORE NOTARY PUBLIC. . Notaries public are not authorized by any law of the United States to administer oaths to affidavits required by the rules and regulations prescribed by the commissioner of the general land-office. a.'SAME. Perjury cannot be assigned upon an affidavit made before a notary public by a person In support of his claim to a preference right to purchase coal land under sections 2848, :t349, Rev. 8t.
(SyU,abu8lYy tM Court.)
Indictment for Perjury. P.: Sullivan, Asst. U. S. Atty. James Hamilton Lewis, for defendant.
HANFORD, J. This indictment is founded upon section 5392, Rev. St. U.S., which reads QS follows: "Every person who, having taken· an oath before a' competent tribunal, officer"Q1' ,peJ;son, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, OJ; certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him suoscribed is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true, is guilty of perjury, and shall be punishable by a fine of not more than two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment at hard labor not more than five years; and shall, moreover, incapable of testimony in any conrto! the VniFed States until time as the jUdgment against him is reversed.» The peIjury alleged to have been committed by the defendant is assigned upon an affidavit made by him before Paul D'Heirry, a notary public, ill: support of his claim as a pre-emptorof coal land, under sections 2348'and 2349, Rev. St. U. S. 'A demurrer 'be'en interposed, raising the question whether such an affidavit is authorized or required bY,aQY law9fthe United States, and whether a notary public is competent ,to administer an oath to such affidavit. Section 2347 et seq., Rev. St. ,relating to sale of coal lands, does not in terms prescribe or authorize such an 'affidavit as the one now under consideration, nor confer any authority upon notaries public; and no act of congress has been called to my attention which does authorize the oath, or vest in such officer the power to administer it, and according to my understanding of the decisions of the supreme court of the United States in the cases of U. S. v. Curtis, 107 U. S. 671,2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 507; U. S. v. Hall, 131 U. S. 50, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 663; U. S. v. Perrin, 131 U. S. 55, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 681 j and U. S. v. Reilly, 131 U. S. 58, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 664, for want of statutory provisions covering these points, the case is not within section 5392. Section 2335 only provides, in effect, that any affidavit required