Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/724

 712 FEDERAL REPORTER. �law, which induees the prosecution, and contributes to the recovery of the fine, penalty, or forfaiture which is eventu- ally reeovered. V. S. v. George, 6 Blatchf. 406; Sawyer v. Steele, 3 Wash. 464 ; City Bank v. Bangs, 2 Edw. Ch. 95 ; Lancaster v, Walch, 4 M. & W. 16; U. S. \. Isla de Cuba, 2 Cliff'. 458; 100 Barrels of Whiskey, 2 Ben. 14; 50,000 Cigars, 1 Low. 22. �The fact that a person has procured valuable testimony, making a strong case against the offenders, but for which it is indeed doubtful whether any conviction could have been had, or any money reeovered from them, does not entitle the person procuring such testimony to any portion of the fine, where the fraud has been discovered and disclosed by others, and proceedings have been commenced in pursuance of that information. The statute gives the informer's share to the one who furnishes the original information which shall lead to the recovery of the fine, but, whether justly or unjustly, awards nothing to those who furnish evidence to confirm the truth of the statements of the original informers, and this, although the applicant may have spent much time and ex- pended money in ferreting out the details of the fraud, since their action cannot be said to have induced the prosecutions. U. S. V. George. 6 Blatchf. 406, 418. �Applying these principles to the case under consideration, it seems quite clear that Stadler cannot be considered the informer ; in fact, he gave no information at all. AU that he did was to advise Jacobs, the f ather-in-law of Applebaum, to induce Applebaum to make a full confession of his connec- tion with the smuggling transactions, and thereby implieate the defendants, This is in no sense of the word the furnish- ing of original information. As between Stadler, Jacobs, and Applebaum, the last stands in much the best position of the three to be considered the informer. �It seems to me, however, that Brakeman may fairly be said to have furnished the original information which led to the recovery of the fine. It is true that he made no dis- closures himself which implicated Simons and Burnstine; ��� �