Jscssou v.-unrrnn srmns. 35
Jscxsou, Ulaimant, etc., v. Uurrmn Srnms.
; (05r0uz't Oourt, si D. New York. July 28, 1884.)
1. INTERNAL Rmvimum LAWB——IMPROPEBLY Sruirrmn CmAns—Pn1¤suM1>r1o1t.
ln case of a seizure of cigars alleged to be in boxes other than such as should
have contain_ed them according to the revenue laws, the natural and reason-
able inference is that the cigars were removed from the factory. in the condi-
· tion in which they were found. `
2. Sams-Bonnnn or PROOF-TRIFLING Pomrs.
In prosecutions under the internal revenue laws it is incumbent upon the
government to show atlirmatively the existence of everyfact which is an ele-
ment of the act made penal. This rule, however, does not require every con-
jecture which may be started by the fertility of counsel to be·overthrown ; it
suiiices, if, upon the evidence in the case, the existence of the facts can be legit- _
imately presumed. ~ ,
3. Baum-Axrxoomsrrc Pnnsumrrions or INNOCENCE.
A defense being that in case of a seizure of cigars in boxes alleged to be not
properly stamped, the presumption of defendant‘s innocence makes it incum-
bent on the government’s counsel to show that the cigars were not taken out
of the original and properly stamped boxes and put into those in which they
were when seized, held, that such an act could not have been done without
violating some of the several stringent provisions of the internal revenue laws,
and subjecting the offender to criminal punishment. The presumptions in fa-
vor of innocence, therefore, neutralize each other.
On Writ of Error.
A. J. Dtttenhoefer, for claimant. ‘
Etihu Root, U. S, Atty., for the United States.
Wannscn, J. The writ of error brings up for review a judgment of
the district court for the Southern district of New York condemning
as forfeited tothe United States certain cigars which the injunction
alleges were "manufactured in some manufactory, United States in-
ternal revenue collection district and state, to the attorney for the
United States unknown, and were removed from said manufactory or
place where the cigars were made withoutstamping, burning, or im- ‘
pressing into each box, in a legible and durable manner, the number
* * * of the manufaetory, and the number of the district and
the state." * —
Section 16 of the act of March 1, 1879, declares that whenever
any cigars are removed from any manufactory or place where cigars
are made without thus stamping into each box the number of the
manufactory, and the number of the district and state, they shall be
forfeited. A
The evidence showed that the boxes here were stamped with the
words "Factory No. 120, Dist. Florida, " but that although there was
such a factory at Key West, Florida, the cigars in suit were never
manufactured at that manufactory. A label upon the boxes indi-
cated that the cigars were made at Key West, in factory No. 120,
September 4, 1882. If these cigars were made in and removed from
A any other manufactory in the United States, it is clear they were not
stamped with the number of the proper manufactory, and the case is