UNITED STATES V. WISE.
(District Oourt, S. D. Ohio. March,1881.)
Section 4472 of the Revised of the United States, under which these actions are brought, prohibits the carrying of petrOleum, naphtha, nitro-glycerine, and other explosive and dangerous articles upon passenger vessels, but excepts from the prohibition refined petroleum of a certain fire test, upon routes where there is no other practicable mode of transportation. The case of U. S. v. Thornburg is a suit for penalty under this statute for carrying petroleum on a passenger steamer from Marietta to Cincinnati, and the case of U. S. v. Wise is for carrying it from Cincinnati to Memphis. Evidence was introduced by the government to show that there was an all-rail route between the points named, and it was claimed that it was a practicable mode of transportation, while the defence sought to prove that it was not a practicable mode, by showing (1) that the rate of freight by rail was so high as to leave no profit in the sale of the oil; (2) that the rate of transportation by rail between the points named was so high as to destroy the trade in oil between these points, inasmuch as it could be secured at a less rate fXQm_ other points. .
"'Reported by Messrs. Florien Giauque and J O. Harper, of the Cincinnati bar.
Ohanning Richards, U. S. Dist. Att'y, for plaintiffs. Moulton, Johnson tf Levy and W. H. Jones, for defendants. SWING, D. J., (charging jury.) If there be an all-rail route
over which the oil may be carried with any profit, it is a practicable mode of transportation; but, if the rate of freight by rail is so high as to prevent any profit upon the sale of the oil. or to destroy the trade in oil between the points in question,-in other words, if the rate of freight be so high as to prohibit commerce in oil between those points,-it would not be a practicable mode of transportion between those points. I refuse to give the following charge, asked by the government: That if there be an all-rail route between the points in question, it constitutes a practicable mode of transportation, within of the statute, without regard to cost or distance. Verdict for defendants.
-qNITED STATES V. BAER.
(Circuit Court, 8. D. New York. December 7,1880.'
PERJURy.;...DEPOSrr,lON-OATH-EvIDENCE-NEW YORK STATUTES.
Upon a trial for perjury,for having sworn falsely as to the truth of a certain deposition, the n9tary" who administered the oath in the state of New York, testified that there was but one legal form of administering an oath in the state, and that such form was, "Do you solemnly swear that the above affidavit subscribed by you is true, in the presence of the ever-living Godj" that he "used that form substantially," but did not know whether he" put in the presence of the ever-living:God;" but that he was" a little conscientious about that," and" a little careful about using it." Held, upon a motion for a new trial, that this. testimony of the notary, coupled with the certificate given at the time to the effect that the affidavit was sworn to before him, was sufficient evidence to sustain a finding that. an oath was administered to the accused.-[ED.
Indictment. Motion for New Trial. BENEDICT, D. J. The defendant was indicted under section 5392 of the Revised Statutes for having taken an oath before .a notary public that a' certain deposition subscribed by him