Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/499

 TOITBD STATES V. NINETT DEMIJOHNS OP BUM. 4c86 ���United States v. Ninbtt Dbmijohns of Eum. {Circuit Court, S. D. Florida. December, 1880.) �1. Cdstoms REVENtJB Laws— Ex Pabtb Heabinci — AcT ov JuNB 22, 1874, \ 18, �^18 St. 189,) CONSTKUED. �The necessity of flnding fraud to Justify forfeiturtf under customs revenue . laws, as provided by section 16, act of June 22, 1874, is not conflned to cases where issue has been joined, but applieB equally to cases heard ex parte under the twenty-ninth admiralty rule. �2. OAME— Pleadikg. �Wiihout averment of fraud no forfeiture is made under guch laws. �3. Same — Demi JOHN not a "Bottle." �A demijohn is not a boftle, in the meaning of the law, so as to require them to be packed in packages of one dozen each. �4. Ltqugrs Imported in Dbmijohns— Impobt Dtm. �There is no provision of law prohibiting the importation of liquors in demi- johns, and so imported they wonld be classed among those " not otherwise provided for," and pay a duty of two dollars per proo'f gallon, �In Admiralty. �The libel alleges that said 90 demijohns of Spanish rum, or agua- diente, were brought into the port of Key West on the twenty-sixth of March, 1879, on a Spanish schooner, consigned in the manifest "to order;" thatit was imported into the United States from Carde nas, Cuba, in large bottles, to-wit, demijohns, and the same were not packed in packages of one dozen bottles in each package, as required by section 2504, sohedule D, of the Revised Statutes of the United States, whereby it became forfeited to the United States, and the collector of customs of said port had seized it as so forfeited. It appears from the record of the proceedings of the district court that, upon proclamatiorl being made, no person appeared to claim any portion of the property seized. The court thereupon proceeded to hear the cause ex parte upon the allegations of the libel and proofs, and on such hearing dismissed the libel. Whereupon, an appeal was taken in behalf of the United States to this court. �G. Bowne Patterson, U. S. Atty., for the United States, who cited Von Catzhamen v. Nazra, 25 Int. Eev. Eec. 342. �No counsel for appellee. �Woods, C. J. The record does not contain the proofs. By the twenty-ninth admiralty rule, prescribed by the supreme court of the United States, if the defendant — �" Sball omit to make due answer to the libel on the retum-day of the process, or other day assigned by the court, the court shall pronouuce him to be io ��� �