The Fame

8 F. Cas. 982

• Court: District Court, D. Michigan
• Decided: December 15, 1858
• Docket: Case No. 4,633
• Status: Published

Opinion

WILKINS, District Judge.

I regret the necessity of condemning the Fame, but the statute is imperative. The first count is based upon the 1st section of the act of 1821, and the facts clearly establish a violation of its provisions. The Fame sailed from the port of Amherstburg, in Canada, bound for Detroit, with 200 barrels of whis-ky, ten kegs of gin and five of brandy, all of Canadian manufacture, and failed to deliver her manifest to the collector at Detroit, where the nearest customs office was located. The excuse is that the liquors were not intended to be imported into the United States, but were designed to be transhipped into another vessel bound to a Canadian port Of this intention I have no doubt; yet the master was bound to deliver his manifest when lying at or off the port Such merchandise was subject to duty, had an importation been intended, and from the “Report Outwards,” signed and verified by the master at Amherstburg, it appears the vessel was consigned to Detroit As no other destination is mentioned for the liquors, they must be presumed to have been consigned to the same place. Foreign liquors are subject to duty; and although this freight was clearly intended elsewhere, yet such intention proved by oral testimony, contrary to the ship’s papers, cannot be admitted as an excuse for a palpable violation of the statute. It would open the door to a vast amount of fraud upon the revenue.

But had I any doubt as to the 1st count, the second is sustained beyond all question. The cargo is of greater value than $400, and the proofs establish the fact that she was unladened within the United States, at midnight, without license or permit 1 say un-ladened, for the steamer Ploughboy was lying at the dock at Port Huron, where the Fame transhipped her cargo. It is contended that this transhipment is not an un-lading within the meaning and spirit of the 50th section of the act of 1799. It is true the cargo was not landed in the literal sense of the word — i. e., placed on shore — but it was taken from one vessel to the other while both were in port. This was clearly a landing within the intent of the statute, which was designed to prevent frauds upon the revenue. It was easy for the master to procure a permit, and thus save his owners from this prosecution. But the court cannot make the law bend to the convene ience of masters. Decree of condemnation.