in the assignee r where the interests are adverse, and have so existed ,for more than two years from the time when the GaUBe oHhe actionaocrued for or against the assignee." In Gifford v. Helmsr98 U. S. 248, the same language is held. We do not see how we Oan avoid giving effect to the statute of (U. S.Rev. St. § .5057.) Tha.t part of the prayer of the petitioners must be denied, but they can prove the claim as an unsecured however, to any defence the assignee may make to the amount or validity and accuracy of the items. The petitioners must pay the costs.
UNITED STATES v. THIRTy-Two BARRELS SPIRITS.-
(District Court, 8. D. Ohio. November, 1880.)
INTERNAL REVENUE LAW-WHOLESALE LIQUOR DEALER-CHANGE 011'
PACKAGE ADDITION OF W ATER.-The mere addition of water to packages of distilled spirits, upon which the tax had been fully paid, the wine and proof gallons therein having been by age reduced below the original gauge, is not a change of package requiring a wholesale liquor dealer's stamp to be placed thereon.
In rem. Action for forfeiture of distilled spirits. Trial to a jury. The evidence showed the addition of water to the spirits to have a been about a gallon per barrel. Ohanning Richards, U. S. Dist. Att'y, for plaintiff. Bateman It Harper, for defendant. SWING, D. J., (charging jury.) The 30 barrels of distilled spirits sought to be forfeited in this case were seized by Collector Kennedy, of the fourth Ohio district, as forfeited to the United States for the following causes: First. "That said distilled spirits were in oertain oasks and packages con· taining more than five gallons, the said casks and package' not
'IHteported by Messrs. Florien Giauque and J. O. Harper, of the Cincinnati bar.
UNITED STATES V. 32 BARRELS OF DISTILLED SPIRITS.
and stamp required by lawt contrary to seetion 3289, U. S. Rev. St. Second. Some person then having thereon each
and there on the business 0'£ a distiller and sale liquor. dealer did "omit, neglect, and refURe to have gauged, and inspected the said distilled spirits," said person having an interest therein as owner, etc., ,contrary to section 3456, U. S.. Rev. St. (old section 96.) Section 3323, U. S. Rev. St., requires that when there has been a change of packages there must bea ,re-inspection and gauging, and certain marks and· brands placed thereon; and section 3321 requires a restamping. If packages which have been properly stamped and marked are withdrawn from the warell.,<.l\Se and taken to the wholesale dealer's establishment, and desires to change them, or withdraw from one cask and put in a smaller '\:me, or anything of that character, he is required to have a new and different stamp, in addition to that which had been previously put on, placed on such packages by the officers of the government, and' to have them remarked and branded. It is alleged in this case that these barrels had not the stamps and brands required by law, and therefore that they were forfeited. If these spirits were originally properly gauged and stamped and marked, upon being withdrawn from the distillery and placed in these packages, and were passed over to the wholesale liquor dealer's establishment-the claimant of this property being a distiller and also a wholesale liquor dealer-he had no right whatever to make any change in these packages by withdrawing from one package and placing in another, or by withdrawing from one package and adding to the quantity in another, or changing the quality of the proof of any pack. age. And if this case comes fairly within the provisions of the statute which required him to procure additional stamps from the collector, he would be guilty of a violation of the statute. The only question of law which is presented to be by the court is this: Provided a package had been properly stamped under the provisions of the law, and marked with the true original proof and wine gallons,-whatever may be required to have been marked and stamped upon
it,-and it had stood for a length of time, and by evaporation the quantity had been decreased, has the wholesale liquor dealer, under the law, the right to add to it, Is that Buch a change of the package &s brings him within the inhibition of this statute? A rectifier is one wQo changes liquors by adding to them or oompounding them or rectifying them; and yet the courts have held, under the statute defining what &rectifier is, that the mere addition of water to his spirits would not make him a rectifier, or the mixing of certain spirits of the same character, if they were under &certain age, would not be rectification. 10 Int. Rev. Rec. 121; Bump's Int. Rev. Law, 217; Int. Rev. Manual, (1879,) p. 182. It seems to me that the mere addition of water to spirits which had been properly stamped and marked, and upon which -the full tax had been paid, could not be regarded as such a change in the package of the spirits which were in the possession of the wholesale liquor dealer as would bring him within the inhibition of the statute. I fail to see what reason would induce the courts to bring such an act within the inhibition. It would take nothing from the government in any way whatever, and it would in no sense take from these spirits any element which would be necessary and essential for the government in tracing them from one point to another. Witnesses have testified that the mere lapse of time has the effect to reduce the proof of spirits as well as the number of wine gallons, and, if this be the fact, the same difficulty in tracing the spirits would exist there that would arise by the addition of water. I therefore think that the mere addition of water would not bring the party within the inhibition of the statute. Verdict for the defendant.
IN BE BRITTIN GHA lIf.
(DitJirict Court, 8. D. New York. .,
Dccembe.r, 1880.) ,
JUNE 22, 1874, H 4 AND 6-ACT Oll' JUNE 16, l880. Sums.l'ecovered on forfeited bail-bonds are not" fines, penalties, or forfeitures," within section 4 of the act of June 22, 1874, and the peHis not entitled under its provisions to compensation as an informer. The secretary of the treasury is not allthorizcd to give rewards to informers under the act of June 16, 1880, which makes provision for the expenses of the government in bringing to trial and' conviction persons engaged in counterfeiting and other felonies. The act of June 22, (section 6,) 1874, providing for a certificate by the judge or court to the secretary of the as to the value of an informer's services, has no application to the act of June 16,
Thomas S. Moore, for petitioner. CnoATE,D. J. The petitioner claims to have given original informatiop.to a chief officer of the customs which led to, the indictment of certain persons for offences against the laws of the United States relating to the customs revenne. The parties indicted having been arrested and held to bail, their bailbonds were afterwards forfeited, and the sureties paid to the United States about $16,000 in satisfaction thereof. The petitioner now applies for an order of reference to a commissioner that he may make proof of the facts, with a view to having the case certified by the court to the secretary oUhe treasury for the payment to him of a compensation as an informer. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief; Amounts reo covered on forfeited bail-bonds are not "fines, penalties, or forfeitures," within the fourth section of the act of June 22, 1874, (18 St. 186.) It is urged, however, that, though the petititioner has no claim under that statute, he is entitled to compensation under the act of June 16, 1880, which makes apptopriations for the expenses of the government, including a certain "for expenses of detecting and bringing to trial and' punishment persons engaged in counterfeiting, etc., and other felonies committed against the laws, etc., relating to