Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/337

 322 FEDERAL REPUBTEB. �TaB Sabatoga. �{District Court, 5.' D. New York. November 1, 1881.) �1. Penalties asd Fokfeitu^ies^Act of Pbbruakt 8, 1881. �Tie Word " seizure," used in the act of February 8, 1881, embraces seizures �by the marshal Under legal process for the enforcement of a penalty pursuant
 * to section 3088 of the Bevised Sta tutes, as'Well as seizures by revenue offlcer»

�for the purposea of forfeitures. �In Admiralty, �S. L. WoodfordyJJ. S. Att'y, and W. C. Wallace, Asst., for libei- lant, :!, �' Goodrich, Deady e Platt,iQV clainiants. �Brown, D. J. On the fourteenth day of July, 1881, as the steam- ship Saratogal, frOin Havana to New York, was coming up the bay aiid passing quai^antine, some boxeS'of cigafS, intended to be smng- gled, withoet the knowledge or privity of the inaster or owner of the vessel, were dropped from the aide of the vessel by some persons un- known. ihe cigars beihg of the value of over $400, and having been thtis "unladen without a permit," the master of the vessel, by section 2873 of the Revised Statutes, became liable to a penalty of |400 ; and, by section 2874j the vessel, her tackle, apparel, etc., became liable to be forfeited to the> United Statesi The cigars were thereaf ter seized and forfeited to the government. On July 20, 1881, the master was eu'ed toi the penalty of |400, and on July 21st the libel in this suit was filed to enforce the same penalty against the vessel, and she was seized by the marshal under process issued out of this court pursuant to section 3088 of the Revised Btatutes. �The owners of the vessel appeared' and filed eiceptions to the libel, setting forth that the vessel was employed as a common carrier, and claiming that under the pirovisions of the act of February 8, 1881, the vessel is no longer subject to seizure for penalties in such cases, and asking' that the libel be dismissed, as it does not appear that either the master or owners were "a consenting party or privy to the illegal acts." The government, though admitting these facts, claimed that the act of 1881 applies exclusively to cases of forfeiture, and of seizures for the purposes of forfeiture, and not to seizures under pro- cess to enforce penalties under section 3088. �The exceptions to the libel in this case are based upon the provis- ions of the act of congress passed February 8, 1881, which, with its title, is as f ollows : ��� �