Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/28

 UNITED STATES V. OASK OP GIN. 23 �the caslîs were what are known as "stand casks" — that is, large ornamental casks, holding more than five gallons, and forming part of the fixtures of a retail liq[uor store — and that they were used for holding distilled spirits, which were pumped into them from the original packages and drawn off from them as sold in small quantities. It also appeared that it was the custom of retail dealers to use such casks that the spirits could be kept in them more advantageously than in the orig- inal packages, and that they were considered as fixtures for per- manent use. The court reserved the point whether the con- tents of these casks were liable to forfeiture, and a verdict was rendered for plaintiff. �John K. Valentine, U. S. District Attorney, for plaintiff. �Richard P. White, for defendant. �Butler, D. 3. Judgment must be entered for the defend- ant on the point reserved. I find nothing to justify the for- feiture. The defendant is a retail dealer. The spirits were found in "stand casks," such as are customarily used in the trade — vessels permanently affixed to the store, and consti- tuting a part of the realty — containing, in this instance, each, as the witnesses say, "over five gallons." The daim to for- feiture is based on section 3289 of the Eevised Statutes, which provides that "ail distilled spirits found in any cask or package, containing five gallons or more, without having thereon each mark and stamp required therefor by law, shall be forfeited to the United States;" which section the plain- tiff's counsel reads as if the words "required therefor by law" were omitted, making it apply generally to such spirits found in ail casks and packages whatever. This construction is not justifiable. The words referred to confine the application to spirits in such casks and packages, and in such quantities, as by other sections of the statute are required to be marked and stamped. These other sections are 3320, 3821, (as altered by the act of August 15, 1876, 19 St. at Large, 152,) and 3323, which, plainly, are inapplicable to this case. No theorizing respecting the object of congress can extend the effect of these sections beyond the plain import of their terms. If it was intended to forfeit spirits found, in the quantities ����