PORT GARDNER INV. CO. v. UNITED STATES

PORT GARDNER INV. CO. v. UNITED STATES. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. February 7, 1927.) Internal revenue i§=»46 — -Prosecution of automobllist for transporting liquor bars subsequent proceeding to declare forfeiture of automobile for failure to pay tax (National Prohibition Act, tit. 2, § 26 [Comp. St. § IO!38'/2mm]; Rev. St. § 3450 [Comp. St. § 6352]). Prosecution of driver of automobile for transporting intoxicating liquor, under National Prohibition Act, tit. 2, § 26 (Comp. St. 3 10138%mm), with plea of guilty, followed by judgment and sentence, barred subsequent proceeding to declare a forfeiture of the automobile, under Rev. St. § 3450 (Comp. St 6352), for failure to pay tax. In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Northern Division of the Western District of Washington; Edward E. Cushman, Judge. Proceeding by the United States for forfeiture of an automobile used in transporting intoxicating liquor, claimed by the Port Gardner Investment Company. Judgment for forfeiture, and claimant brings error. Reversed. Grinstead, Laube & Laughlin, of Seattle, Wash., and Thomas E. Davis, of Portland, Or., for plaintiff in error. Thos. P. Revelle, U. S. Atty., and J. W. Hoar, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Seattle, -Wash. Before GILBERT, RUDKIN, and DIETRICH, Circuit Judges. [MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.] PER CURIAM. Prohibition officers discovered one Neadeau in the act of transporting intoxicating liquor by automobile in violation of law. The officers thereupon seized the automobile and apprehended the driver of the ear. Later an information was filed in the court below against the driver, charging violatiqns of the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. § 10138(4 et seq.) in two counts. The first count charged the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and the second the unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor. A plea of guilty was interposed as to both counts, followed by a judgment and sentence. There was therefore a prosecution with effect, under section 26, tit. 2, of the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. § 10138(4nun), and such prosecution is a bar to a proceeding to declare a forfeiture under section 3450 of the Revised Statutes (Comp. St. § 6352). Port Gardner Investment Co. v. United States, 47 S. Ct. 165, 71 L. Ed. -, decided by the Supreme Court November 23, 1926. The judgment is reversed.