the convenient enjoyment of any said house or | comprehend the District of Columbia; and the The Acts of 1876 and 1877 substitute for this addition a provision to the same effect, though differing somewhat in form, as follows: "But if any portion of any such building, house, grounds or cemetery, so in terms excepted, is larger than is reasonably needed (in the Act of 1876-"absolutely required," in the Act of 1877) and actually used for its legitimate purpose and none other, or is used to secure a rent or income, or for any business purpose, such portion of the same, or a sum equal in value to such portion, shall be taxed against the owner of True copy. Test: James H. McKenney, Clerk, Sup. Court, U. S. said building or grounds." 19 Stat. at L. 85, JOHN W. COFFEY, Claimant, etc. Piff. 899. in Err., V. UNITED STATES. Upon the construction most favorable to the (See S. C. Reporter's ed. 427-435.) Revenue laws-suits in rem for forfeitures for We are not disposed to deny that grounds left open around a church, not merely to admit light and air, but also to add to its beauty and attractiveness, may, if not used or intended to be used for any other purpose, be exempt from taxation under these statutes. 1. Suits in rem for forfeitures for violations of the 2. Upon a writ of error to reverse a judgment of 4. It is not necessary, in an information under But upon the uncontroverted facts of the 5. The general rules of pleading in admiralty suits 6. In a proceeding kindred to an admiralty pro- Jan. 18, 1886. The objection, taken in argument, that the States for the District of Kentucky. case it provides that the tax upon all lands with- Messrs. Wm. A. Maury, Asst. Atty-Gen., Mr. Justice Blatchford delivered the opinion of the court: baf on the hundred, is founded on a misunder- for defendant in error. NOTE.-General verdict; effect of. See Snyder v. [408] [427] [428] [429] This is an information filed by the attorney | more than twenty gallons each, before removof the United States for the District of Ken- ing the same from the warehouse where the tucky, on behalf of the United States, in the same were stored and deposited, and before sellcircuit court for that district, against one cop-ing and disposing of the same, and did sell and per still and worm and other distilling appara- dispose of and remove from said warehouse the tus, one distillery, with all its appurtenances, said spirits before the tax had been paid thereon consisting of boiler, engine, copper doubler or the said packages had been properly branded complete, with sixty-five tubs, also twenty-two and stamped," and that he owned and was inbarrels and two pieces of barrels of apple terested in the said twenty-two barrels and two brandy, estimated at 850 gallons, said to be the pieces of barrels of distilled spirits. property of John W. Coffey, and under seizure The claimant demurred to the first cunt in on land, by a deputy collector of internal reve- the amended information, as insufficient in law nue, as being forfeited to the United States. and fact. He demurred to the second count, The original information alleges that Coffee as presenting no cause of forfeiture for either "did have said still and worm, and distillery, the distillery or distilled spirits, and as insufengine, boiler, and other distilling apparatus, ficient in law. He demurred to the third count, under his control and set up, and was engaged as insufficient in law and not authorized, be in carrying on the business of a distiller, and cause a specific penalty other than forfeiture is did then and there change and alter the stamps, provided for the act therein charged, to wit: in marks and brands on certain casks and pack-section 3296 of the Revised Statutes. The court ages containing distilled spirits, and did put into overruled the demurrers. certain casks and packages spirits of greater strength than was indicated by the inspection mark thereon, and did fraudulently use casks and packages having inspection marks and stamps thereon, for the purpose of selling other spirits, and spirits of different quantity and quality from the spirits previously inspected therein, and then and there attempted to defraud, and did defraud, the United States of the tax on the spirits distilled by him." Under a monition and attachment the marshal arrested the property and gave the notice required by law. Coffey filed a claim to all the property as owner, and all of it except the apple brandy was released to him on a bond. He answered the information, admitting the seizure and denying the other allegations, except that as to his having under his control and set up the property in that behalf alleged. The notice published stated that the property was seized for a violation of sections 3257 and 8326 of the Revised Statutes. The claimant then answered the amended information, denying the allegations of the first count; denying the allegations of the second [43 count, except the one that the distilled spirits seized were subject to a tax imposed by law, which tax had not been paid; and denying the allegations of the third count, except the one as to the ownership of the distilled spirits seized. There was a trial by a jury in October, 1881, in which the jury failed to agree on a verdict. The claimant then filed an amendment to his answer, as follows: "The claimant, John W. Coffey, amends his answer herein to the information and amendments thereto, and states that the custody, possession and control of the articles or objects on which a tax was by law imposed, and complained of in the information of plaintiffs and found in his possession, to wit: twentytwo barrels (22) and two pieces of barrels of brandy, distilled spirits, and charged to have been in his possession for the purpose of selling the same in fraud of the internal revenue laws, Afterwards, an amended informai, as and with design to avoid the payment of the filed by leave of the court. It states that the taxes thereon, or sold or removed by him in attorney of the United States "amends his in-fraud of the internal revenue laws, and the formation herein, and gives the said judges various assignments of breaches and violations further to know," that Coffey was engaged in of law now considered, are the same goods and carrying on the business of a distiller, and did wares and objects, or commodities and distilled "defraud and attempt to defraud the United spirits, named and set out in an information States of the tax on part of the spirits distilled filed against him, the said John W. Coffey, by him," and that the said distillery and distil- at the February Term of this court, 1881, and lery apparatus were used by him, and that the prior to the filing of the information herein. said twenty-two barrels and two pieces of bar-That all of the said twenty-two barrels and two rels of apple brandy, to wit: distilled spirits, pieces of barrels of brandy, distilled spirits, were found on his distillery premises. It states found in his custody, control and possession, in a second count that the said distilled spirits are the same found in his control and posseswere subject to a tax imposed by law, which had sion prior to the information filed against him not been paid, and were found in the possession, at the February Term, 1881, of this court; and custody and control of said Coffey for the pur- that all the acts complained of in plaintiff's inpose of being removed and sold by him in fraud formation herein might have been established, of the internal revenue laws, and with design if said allegations be true, under the said of avoiding the payment of said tax. It states information, either upon the counts in said in a third count that said Coffey was an author-information based upon section 3450 or 3452 or ized distiller, and did "knowingly and willfully 3257. That all the evidence which would be omit, neglect and refuse to do or cause to be necessary to establish, and competent under, done certain things required of him by law in the various assignments of breaches and of inthe carrying on and conducting of his said busi-tended frauds in plaintiff's information herein, ness, to wit: did knowingly and willfully omit, would be competent under and would tend to neglect and refuse to stamp and brand, and establish the allegations of said information at cause and require to be stamped and branded, said February Term, 1881. That the various as required by law, a large number, to wit: two assignments (of) frauds and attempts or intents certain packages of distilled spirits, containing to defraud the United States of the tax imposed In upon said distilled spirits, to wit: the twenty- and the question as to the jurisdiction of the two barrels and two pieces of barrels of apple circuit court, are open for consideratiou. 411 brandy, relate to the same subject matter and The objection to the jurisdiction is not well are based upon the same transaction as the va- taken. By section 629 of the Revised Statrious allegations in said information at the Feb-utes, subd. 4, original jurisdiction is given to ruary Term, 1881, contained, so far as they the circuit courts of all causes arising unrelate to offenses under sections 3452, 5453, and der any law providing internal revenue.' 8257, or either of them, and that at the time title XXXV of the Revised Statutes, concernwhen the said information at the February ing “internal revenue," section 3213 provides Term, 1881, was drawn, considered, and pre- that "All suits for fines, penalties aud forfeit sented by the attorney for the United States, ures, where not otherwise provided for, shall all the facts which would be competent to sus- be brought in the name of the United States, tain the allegations of plaintiff's information in any proper form of action, or by any approberein were known to and within the posses-priate form of proceeding, qui tam or othersion of the representatives of the United States. wise, before any Circuit or District Court of And the claimant, John W. Coffey, says that the United States, for the district within which the United States ought not to maintain this ac- said fine, penalty or forfeiture may have been tion for the penalty, punishment and forfeiture, incurred, or before any other court of comor either of them, claimed in sections 3450, 3453, petent jurisdiction." By section 563, subd. 3457, or 3257, for, at the February Term, 1881, 1, jurisdiction is given to the district courts an information was found, as recited above, in "of all suits for penalties and forfeitures inthe District of Kentucky, at Louisville, and in curred under any law of the United States." this court, against this claimant, John W. By subdivision 8 of section 563 jurisdiction is Coffey, the claimant named herein, the counts given to the district courts of all seizures on of said information alleging that he had in his land; and it is enacted that such jurisdiction possession a large quantity of distilled spirits shall be exclusive, except in the particular upon which a tax was by law imposed and had cases where jurisdiction of such seizures is not then been paid, with intent to defraud or given to the circuit courts. By subdivision 4 for the purpose of defrauding the United States of section 629, jurisdiction is denied to the cir of the tax thereon, and with design to avoid the cuit courts of suits for penalties and forfeit payment of the tax thereon on a part of said ures arising under any Act providing for rev spirits or on the spirits so in his possession. enue from imports and tonnage; but they have That at said term of said court the defendant it in suits for penalties and forfeitures arising pleaded guilty to the charges and counts in said under the internal revenue laws. information, and was adjudged and sentenced to pay a fine of $500, which judgment was the fail penalty and punishment for the violations of law imposed on him for the alleged offenses charged in said information, which were the same violations and charges, offenses and allegations of fraud, design to avoid the payment of the taxes due and imposed on said spirits, and alegations of intent to sell the same in fraud of the internal revenue laws of the United States; and he pleads and relies on the facts herein set forth as a bar to plaintiff's claim herein, and aks the same to be dismissed, with all proper relief, etc. Four months after this amendment to the anwer was filed, the case was tried by a jury, which rendered a general verdict for the plaintThe claimant thereupon moved for a dgment, notwithstanding the verdict, and at ater day moved to set aside the verdict and arrest of judgment, on these grounds: "1. The verdict is not authorized by law and the facts in the case. 2. Because the defendant has been tried for the same offense herein charged in a former proceeding, a criminal information, and this court has no jurisdiction forfeitures. 3. That the information itself inficient in law to sustain the action." The court overruled the motions and entered a iment condemning as forfeited the property bed, "for the reasons and causes in the formation and amended information speciand awarding costs against the claimant. It reverse this judgment the claimant has sued a writ of error. There is no bill of exeptions in the record, so exception to the overruling of the mobut the questions arising on the demurthe counts of the amended information, Although, in practice, suits in rem for forfeitures for violations of the internal revenue laws are more frequently brought in the dis trict courts, yet cases are to be found of suct suits originally brought in the circuit courts, where jurisdiction was taken and was not questioned. Such cases are U. S. v. Two Tons of Coal, etc., 5 Blatchf. 386, in the Eastern Dis trict of New York, in 1867, before Judge Benedict; United States v. One Still, etc., Id. 403, and U. S. v. 508 Barrels of Distilled Spirits, Id 407, and U. S. v. 6 Barrels of Distilled Spirits, Id. 542, in the same district, in 1867, before Mr. Justice Nelson and Judge Benedict; U. S. v. 7 Barrels of Distilled Oil, etc., 6 Blatchf. 174, in the same district, in 1867, before Judge Benedict; and U. S. v. 200 Barrels of Whiskey, 2 Woods, 54, in the District of Louisiana, in 1874, before Mr. Justice Woods, then circuit judge. Like jurisdiction of a suit in personam for a violation of the internal revenue laws was taken, in 1877, by the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, held by Mr. Justice Miller and Judge Dillon in U. S. v. McKee, 4 Dill. 128. It has been adjudged by this court that informations under the revenue laws for the forfeiture of goods, which seek no judgment of fine or imprisonment against any person, though civil actions and not strictly criminal cases, are so far in the nature of criminal proceedings as to come within the rule that a general verdict, upon several counts, seeking in different forms one object, must be upheld if one count is good. Clifton v. United States, 4 How. 242, 250 [45 U. Š. bk. 11, L. ed. 957, 961]; Snyder v. U. S. 112 U. S. 216 [Bk. 28, L. ed. 697]. In this case, the first count in the amended [433 [434] [435] As to the plea of a former conviction, the proceedings being kindred to those in a suit in admiralty in rem, so far as the pleadings are concerned, no reply or replication to the answer was necessary to raise an issue of fact on the matters averred in it. New matter in an answer is considered as denied by the libelant. Rule 51, in admiralty. The issue of fact as to the former conviction must be held to have been found against the claimant, by the general verdict; and no question in regard to the defense set up can be raised, in the absence of a demurrer to the answer, and of a bill of exceptions raising specific questions. Judgment affirmed. True copy. Test: James H. McKenney, Clerk Sup. Court, U. &. Cited-117 U. S. 233. v. UNITED STATES. information is good. It is founded on section | attempt to defraud the United States of the tax [21 U. S. bk. 5, L. ed. 644]; Union Ins. Co. v. (See S. C. Reporter's ed. 436-445.) Internal revenue - forfeitures—pleading and practice-acquittal on criminal prosecution, a bar to an action in rem jurisdiction of circuit courts. 1. Suits in rem for forfeitures for violations of the internal revenue ws are within the jurisdiction of the circuit court. 2. Upon a writ of error to reverse a judgment of forfeiture for a violation of the internal revenue laws, questions involving the sufficiency of the information and the regularity of the proceedings, which were not formally raised in the court below, cannot be considered by this court. legations of the first count of the information, can3. The claimant, having by answer denied the alnot, on the record as presented, be heard to say that he did not know the charge made and could not defend against it. 4. One good count in the information will uphold the judgment after general verdict. 5. A judgment of acquittal in a criminal prosecution for a violation of the internal revenue laws, is conclusive in favor of the defendant, as claimant of the property involved in a subsequent suit in rem, when, as against him, the existence of the same act or fact involved in the criminal prosecution is in issue as a cause for the forfeiture of such prop erty. [No. 91.] Argued Dec. 10, 1885. Decided Jan. 18, 1886. IN ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kentucky. The history and facts of the case appear in the opinion of the court. Messrs. Samuel McKee, T. T. Alexander and G. C. Wharton, for plaintiff in er 14 4371 * * * of the United States for the District of Ken- | internal revenue laws or with design to avoid The second count is founded on section 3450 of the Revised Statutes, which provides as follows. "Whenever any goods or commodities for or in respect whereof any tax is or shall be imposed, or any materials, utensils, or vessels proper or intended to be made use of for or in 28 the making of such goods or commodities, are oved, or are deposited or concealed in any Face, with intent to defraud the United States of such tax or any part thereof, all such goods and commodities and all such materials, utenand vessels, respectively, shall be forfeited. And every person who removes, depets or conceals, or is concerned in removing, depositing or concealing any goods or commodLe for or in respect whereof any tax is or tal be imposed, with intent to defraud the Ted States of such tax or any part thereof, be liable to a fine or penalty of not more thas $700. ” The third count is founded on section 3453 of the Revised Statutes, which provides as follows: *All goods, wares. me:chandise, articles or obn which taxes are imposed, which shall be found in the possession or custody or within the control of any person, for the purpose of ing sold or removed by him in fraud of the [439] |