BUSH 'IJ. UNITED STATES.
practice. He not only undertook, in his professional capacity, by the use of money, to corrupt the officers who made the arrest, and to induce another to personate a Missouri officer in order to effect his dient's escape, but offered, in furtherance of his fraudulent suggestion, to personally commit the crime of forgery. This conduct cannot be adequately characterized. A man capable uf such action is unworthy the confidence of the court, and ought not to have his opportunities for wrong-doing enlarged by being permit. ted to continue to practice as an attorney at law. The respondent will therefore be stricken from the roll of attorneys of this court, and henceforward debarred the right to practice herein.
As to right to disbar attorney, see Ex parte Wall, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 569, and In re Wall. 13 Fed. Rep. 814, and note, 82U.
v. UNITED STATES.
September 15, 1885.)
(Circuit COU1·t, D. Massachusetts.
iNTERNAL REVENUE-FORFEITURE FOR VIOLATION OF STATUTE-AcTS OF AGENT, HoW FAH BINDING ON PRINCIPAL.
in an information for forfeiture of a distillery for violation of the statute, tbe acts and intents of the servants or agents of the are to be imputed to the principal, in sn far as that they may work the forfeiture of the property used for unlawful purposes.
Appeal from District Court. Prentiss Cummings, for plaintiff in error. C. Almy, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., for the United States. CARPENTER, J. This is a writ of e1"ror to the district court for the district of Massachusetts to bring up the record of an information for the forfeiture of a distillery, and has been heard by Judge COLT and myself upon a bill of exceptions and motion in arrest of judgment, which appear in the record. We are of opinion that a man· date be returned directing judgment on the verdict. The only exception to which it seems to us necessary to make reference arises in the following way. , There was evidence in the case from which the jury might have inferred that the violations of law in the information were committed on the premises of the claimant, and in the course of the prosecution of his business, by a servant or agent of the claimant, but without the personal knowledge ·or consent of the claimant In this state of the proof, the learned judge who tried the case instructed the jury, in substance, that in an information for forfeiture the acts and intents of the servant or ll,gent of the claimant are to be imputed to the principal, in so far as that they may work the forfeiture of the property so used for unlaw. ful purposes.
Undoubtedly, in a criminal prosecution, this rule would not be applied; but, considering the scope and intent of the statute solelY'as it relates to forfeitures, we think the information was supported by proof of the unlawful use and of the intent to defraud, whether such use and intent were by the claimant personally, or by some' person acting under his authority and control. This conclusion seems to us to be supported by the reasoning of the court in Dobbins' Dist·illery v. U. S., 96 U. S. 395. No error. Judgment of district court affirmed.
(DiBtrict (Jourt, D. Mm·yland. March 4, 1885.)
GRAIN CHARTER-PARTY-CONSTRUCTION OF WORDS" IN BALLAST."
ABOUT READY TO SAIL
Merchants in Baltimore, desiring a steamer for an August shipment of grain, signed a charter-party, in which it was stipulated that the steamer was" now about ready to 8all from the United Kingdom, in buUast. " The steamer at the date of the charIer-party, Friday, August 8th, was in the dry-dock at Shields for repairs. She was let out of the dock the next day, lind commenced taking in ballast, coal, and stores' for the voyage. She completed these preparations on the folloWing Tuesday, when it was discovered that some of her valves had been misplaced while in the dock. 'This delayer!ller another day. and she saIled on Wednesday, 13th. She arrived in Baltimore one day too late for an August shipment of graio, and the charterers refused to load her. Held, that the steamer was not at the date of the charter-party about ready to sail in ballast, aod that the charterers had a right to refuse her.
In Admiralty. John H. Thomas and G. Le·ipe'l' Thomas, for libelants. Brown ct Brune, for respondents. MORRIS, J. 'l'his is a libel against the respondents for refusal to load the British steam-ship Orsino, which the libelants, through their agents, had chartered to the respondents in the city of Baltimore on the eighth day of August, 1884. The charter-party is the usual steam grain charter, and describes the Orsino as "now about ready to sail from the United Kingdom, in ballast," and agrees that the steamer, being tight, staunch, strong, and in every way fitted for the voyage, shall, with all convenient speed, sail and proceed to Baltimore. It was provided that should the steamer not be ready for cargo at her loading port on or before the thirty-first of Augnst, the charterers should have the option of canceling; also that they should have the option of loading thesteamel' at Newport News, order to be gh;en at a port of call.