OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
tlonorable
Tau Sesy
County Attorney
Pottvr county ‘i
Amarillo, Tosea
‘\:
mu 18 vlth rder ter reque8tlng
the opiimn 0r this departme
1 1b e l0Jdunlsr r
aontrarg 16 shovn?
"2. XX yau u-aver the ebovs que8tien in
the neg(ttlvel, please rdvl80 u to the muter end
lerqth or tlete far vuoh auah notlrre should be
given.
Xonor&ble TopsSaay, p8ge 2
“31. sh0uld th0 0rdw or eel0 0r owh a
osbiole .arrdreleted proeeedia$e be r,emderedla
ooAwotiQA vith mad m e pert or the orl.m3.nel
pr000eutbua egeinet the derendent, or is it ma-
800ery for the Set0 ‘to rib l eep luit on
er ete
the civil doaket in order to obtain luoh up or-
d0ro r l0280*
Article I, Seation 14, or the Teue Llqucw Con-
trol Act lo taken ana ror the moot pUrt,
sopied tram &a-
tan 26 or Title d or the Petloeal Prohibition Aat (Title
27, Sootlon 40, WCA), aov repe@lod. Wuee the tvo eat0
are almoot ldentloel inrof8r au the preeorlbed proardure
ror rareiture 0r reeeelv aad whloleo uavd in tivrul
traruportatlon 0r aleaholu bev*regeo, the deeielone 0r
tba Pederrl Court0 oometr the Uetlon81 Problbltlan Aat
in thle regard wet be eon01 -tared ee ~uvolve in oonvtru-
a g e lir ilerp o vieio ~ or th e2ma e uor Cati Act.
fn Volun 39, pqe WI, of Toxav Jwleprudenae,
it ia etated:
“) 140. Adoptid 8tatutee. -- A #awea,
prateion or etatute adopted rrca the lave or
eaether etate (IF osuntry Vill 0dbarl4 be given
th elew wnetrwtlen in Cue0th e t it b edr e-
eoo:d in the jurledlotiea Rror uhleh it vu bor-
xr it hod been given 8 rtlud a~0 doriait
tebelal~by the oourte or thet jur~eclh3tion,
1t
Vlll be
giVeI% the lapo meuoin(gin TeXae. The
rule rbete upon the peeumptlen thet the Lo@*-
&tare vee aver0 or the judleial laterpretetlon
giVOA iA the jUPi~d%OtiCUX rrQI0 Vhbh the et&t-
ute vu takea, aad thet in aloptiaq *UC& et&-
ute it lx&ended eleo to loeept eueh aonetcw-
t1oA.
e&lOOrdb&k~ the X'OfiOUO QOAOt&WtiOA Or
enadopted lt8tute ril P ba re&eMed u l pert
o f th 0la , M d vi1 1b er0xm0d wl000 it ep
peer0 to be eontrery to t&e lplrlt es& polio
of the furloprudeao* 0r Teaee. Horeover, euL
l8q WAtconetrwtlene 0r co 4tlOpteQotatuto by
the aourte 0r the rtate from vhiab At vee imjmrt-
ed ere atron& pereuaeive of the interpretetlen
th.t ehould bo pleaed UpW It IA th0 edopting
lt*te.
*. . . .”
Beroro dleaueeleg e8oh or your queetione, the
gontsrel lubjeot 0r the procedure for rorrelture 0r autcmo-
bllee under the repealad IUtlonal Prohibitton Act will be
notloed.
It 10 nmlteet that thmre lo a la& or &rinlte
powdure preeerlbed, both in the Texm Liquor Control mt
W in the liatloaal Prohibitlun hat, by vbloh to determine
the relative right0 Or all pertlee oowemed la the prop-
erty 00 ae to peslude them at cmee urd r0r all tbrr rp0I
rurthw olaaing any intereat t&rein.
la the aaoe or Oalted 8t8tee v. QXMStephone Auto-
mobile, 272 Pod. Rep. 188, lo rwad l rull and aoqdete dle-
aueelon or meny qwetlone Iavolved In oeudlnge r’0rr0r-
relture or &utamobllee under th srepo or ld 8edua.l Act. For
a oamprehen8lva undoretendlng Or the ooneluelone reeehed
in thet oeea, a0 meybe or ueleteaae in ocmetrulag the
Texae Aot, the tollou~ hngu&ge, deemedpertlneat, lo
quoted:
(I The est denwwed by tUe le6tloa
lo tb*~t&uwt~tlon 0r llqbmre in violetian of
lev, urd requlree thet, uhea 0 pereon 10 die-
QovereG fu th e let, tha llqwre bdng truuport-
ed ehell bo eeieed, the vehIale La lfhioh they
are being oarrled teken into pOOOOOOlOn by the
orrhw, end the pueon b uherge thereor --
thet lo, 0r the llquore ud vehlclo - erreot-
ed, all to hollow preotio81ly ocurewrmtl~ vith
a dleaovery or the pert Or the 0rraOr or l
pereon In the l0t 0r traaeportlng l*qufm ofai-
trery to lav. Tha vehlo& ueed IA tmnepO*ta-
tloon or the liquor0 Psocuee um orrendlng thing,
88 the pereon dleoovered la the eot Ie the of-
Iader, end lo to be dealt vith le eeotfoa 26
0r tltle 2 0r t&m eat rurthr provide*.
'Thie eeotlorr leome to oonte~lete thet,
UpOn OOWiOtiOA Sr the piHOw ep~head0d ia
the trpneportettan or the lntoxloente, the ve-
hicle or other ooeft ueod in euoh trenep8tetlaa
: ,
iionorebla Toa my-, pege 8
*hell be 0010 in eny event. bmleee the ovner ebw
go& United Statee v.
eeuee tc) the oontr&ry.
ikockley (D. G.) 266 Fed. 1001. When eold, the
proaesde thelcoof, efter the peyment of the ex-
peasor attending the eeiruro end oak ud euah
bone fide liene ee ore eetebllehed OgOS.nOtthe
property, am required to be oovered into the
treaeury or
the Uaited 3tetee. Afxer *ale, all
lien8 qelnet the propert ore treneierred to
the prweede. Bone ride T I~IW mey be oeteb-
liehed by lntorvention or othervlee ‘8t raid
hoerhg,’ or in other prooeedlng brought rm
It hovewr no one ehell be
KiTLEXT&ng t&e vehisli, it 10 provided thet
the tekiag 0r the leme,vlth the deeoription
thereof, em11 be edvsrtleed la mower provided,
and, ir no elelment ehell ap9eer vithin 10 day0
titer the leet publleetlon of the edmrtlea-
wnt, thw thet the property *hell be *old
8nd the prooeede peld into the trereury of
the UnLted Stats0 le eiIeo*lleeooue~r*celpte.
“lt would eppeer thet the prowdur* pro-
vided, vhere no one lo louad 6leIRln& the prop-
ertr, lo urple r0r diveetiture or title, 00
eppproprlete AotLM to interrated pertIce ie
prowldo&, 6nd en opportunity for m claimerat
to ep9ear cwl preeumably to be herrb lo AIEoFd-
ed. But IA the aret IrPetaaee, 80 we have
**am, the eat dLreote that upan oonvtutlon
of the pcreon mreeted, sroept upon aood ceuee
ehovn by the ovmw, the oourt ehell order a
role et publie lwtlo n of the property eelecd,
thet lo, the vehlole or other oreft wed La
tr8AOpOFting the iAtartarAte, aad thea hOV the
prowade oh011 be diepoeed of. Ho deoleretion
Or #OFfeitUXO Or OOAdWAetiOA Or tha prOp@rty
eelead ie provided ior. The pro*Leian for trene-
Perrin~ the lien8 0r clelmente to the prooeede
ol ths eels vould eeem to indtoete e legieletlm
purpoee to sxtsnd to lien olelmrote the r&g&t
to pureue t&f& OllLau, to the -tOAt or pro-
oaedhg agaillat the procmsde ef’ter lrlr) that
lo to oeg, the aeh ltee~ VP0 not doeQpwd to
out err oontroveray a0 to the rigbte of bone
fide clalaatlts tM&.i~ the pPbpaFty l818ed 6tid
ordwed to be sold. So it ie 8e~Uaret thet the
ovum io not precluded by the ordm of eele
ikonorebls foe 3eey, pegs 5
and the 8ab mode In pureueme thereor, nor ore
the lien cleIment8.
“As to the pxooedure, the otfioer mklly
the sole lo required to 9ey 811 bane tide llene
which ere eetabliehed bye Intervention or other-
vie6 et ‘said heerlng’ or other proceeding brought
for th6 purpoer. b mbiguity 6xlete le to vhet
lo went by the ulie of the vorde ‘uid heerIag.*
Do they rsrlate to the triel ot the pQreon wrest-
ed, or to t&c! hoerlng broqht on by intervention
or otherviee, 3r other proseeding brought for
the gurpcea of dete~ainlag the relldity of tho
liens alaimed, or their reletlve prlorltles?
“I up 0r the vlev thet the letter vee LA-
tended. The order of eele vould leem to follov
lUtQWtiC6lly U9OR WAtiOtiOA. There lo ~0 pro-
vlelonfor 8 trlel touoh%ngthe rl@te of aleIm-
ente to the property et the tlw 0r the trlel of
the pereon arreeted. Ln feet,euo hl.h e a r ing
VGdd eeem to be oollet6r8l to eny luau6 ee to
th6 guilt of the pereon erreeted. lo aottre 0r
the eelewe OS tbe property 18 provided by vlliab
to preolude partlee intereetsd therein, unleee
It be thet the eelture iteelr lo deemed euffi-
alent, why prorlde later for l dvertlelng the l8l.6
la oe8e ~0 one *hell b6 fsimd clelmlng the prop-
erty, cud opportunity r0r olei.mente to appeu IA
pureuenam of the edvertlwrUat?
“It ie menlfeet that there Lo 144k of de-
finite prooedur6 prsecrlb6d lppllceble In the
firat inetOnoe by vhioh to determlas tha rela-
tive rights OS 811 putiee sowerned in th6 pro90
erty, 00 00 to prealude thea lt 01109end r0r lll
tincr Sram rurther cleFPing eny intereet therein.
IWv, t.h6 governa4nt h40, vlth 4 vtev t4 4ond4m-
fng the property eeieed enB affording e hearing
to 011 9ert:ee comerned, aad dieposing or the
eema or the low dlreete, iaetltuted the lprownt
proeeedlng, though m6ermor vhet lo t6rined e
libel, and the prlsery qwetlon lo vhether euoh
prooaedfng lo lpproprlete aad 06~ be eveil6d of
for the pkwpoee.
i&nor&la Tom Sexy, page 7
“met conviction ~88 bed %n the c~t&aLnal
oaure 18 a pertinent allegation to the @overn-
writ’s right to condemn the automobile. For the
went of such ellegetion, the libel or I.nfoma-
tiou nuut be held to be b8UffiCi4Qt. . . .”
in the cat34 of aoneral Motor8 kcceptence Corpore-
tion v. iJnfted3tetes, 23 Fed. (26) 799, by 6 Fcderel Co&z%
of’ Clrcult kpjwfilo in Rorth CurOUR&,
an autosaobilewar
seized by Pederal Prohibition &Ult, end Upon 88iaUre VW
sound to contein thirty-five Ejallonsof lloobO~io liquor
upor?vh,lchthe tax had not been paid. UpOn motion of ths
Uorted State@’ Attorney the aourt entered an orc?sr cenbemn-
ing 'and fozSeLtlr>he autornoblleunder 3eotlorr26 of Title
2 of the HatLone PrOhibltlon Act (27 USCA, Seation &I), end
ordered the automobile turned over to the Prohlbltion Ad-
minl8trator for ~84 in the snforosmsnt of the iEationa1 Ro-
hlbltlon Act. tkxerm]. biotorlrAoOeptence Corporetion held a
valid but unrecorded lien on the autOmobile. This sect wea
well.known to the PrOhZbltlcn~ent 84f%iA& the eutcirnotlle,
yet the haoeptonaeCmpor8tlon ~88 not notified OS the p-c+-
oeedfng and &Fd not learn OS it until the omwt had placed
the e4hlolQ in tbe hands bf the Prohlbitiun A&enta for their
IA remuti1n.gthe wne to the lover court far further
%iOA the OoWt 8Qid;
I)
. . . .
"It would neem, in view of the fbat that
the governmerit~s agent8 kneu of the cleSe Of the
appellant, that fair dealing would have rquired
SoiiIQnotice to appellelltof the pro444ding to
fortelt. Certainly the govemiaent end ita of-
floerr o&m do no 108.9 then to mooo~d t5 the p8rties
st lntere8t that 8~14 fair deel3.q and good felth
thet 18 rsguirad in deal-, vlth the government
and its weIIt8. in no other way ottrk the enforoe-
muat of the lt3aW be mede uhole8olaelyrerpsoted.
" . to maqulre jurirdlction, the cowt
isAynoi &ly alone upon tha seiz.ureof the prohi-
bition ef$elltl, but there 8hotid be e libel filed
or other 8pproprimt.epl"Oaeeainghad. Thlo ve8
not b.me in thie c&w, but the order es entered
Vail bmaad solely upon the ileisureof thu pmhl-
bitlon agent. . . .
“The government oontand8 th8t ke8uw the
contra& cf a818 held by tha .p&tnt Ita8 not
reaorded, it v18 sot efteotlre agafaat the Oltim
og the United state0 for iorfelture, md that
under the North Carollna regfatr~tlon atbtute
(C. 9. 1 3308 et seq., aa meaded), reqtirlng
the reglakriag of auah Qaatr&ota to 88ke thea
mud, a$ apin@t &W8dltOr8 G? pwohuers for
ralue, the f*llurv to register rendera appel-
lant’r lfm void ma awlnat the government98
ol8fa or forfeiture. we MJUXOt MMDt thh
ViUU.
out ZlOtlOe, and the government or the IJaded
water, in e r6rreftfae praoee~ng or ma
klad, dew not OQI w&or olther 6lua. St&a
v. all* 91 u. Y8. 648, ill 8. 8. 8fiojoiwotorr
co. f. JMk8oJa, la4 II. c 380 ilk 8. 5. 4793
United State8 v. Torrra b.C.j iI91 t. 3.38. la
t&e ease laat oltwl, ln UL able opinloa, Jvdw
Sow dl8ouwea thl8 quaatlen, U propart~,
ve think, readm the oeaoluaion that, evea
tn the 8baenoe of reo6m¶atioa, the right0 of
tbeunlted 5tateeu brmdbf the muonal
iwhfbftfcm llct u-0 lb er dia 6to todth er lg tr ,
ti Loa tide &fumra vltbout ~otlve of the il-
&al we 0s the ourylag whlole.
‘A&n, it ia owtendvd on behalf of the
avorawnt that the lppelUmt V*a tilty of
Lahe a in delaa to set up it0 c k l8 uat11
Mmoh 18, l9i27, v&en the o&m fat lorf*iture
vu entered on Ootober 4, 1926. . . . Appel-
lant did not k.?&ov oi tha ~ooeodbg Under the
19atloaal Pxwhlbltloa A& urrdil %mad.Utrly be-
fore the ill&q of it0 petttion. m govwa-
sent could ham notiiled 6ppsll@nt of the wtlan
taken at my Mae, but did not do w, md BP-
pellaxtt w3ted irudl*telz at learnLog the true
altuntlon. Under these el&wumstM~e~. VI do
not feel tkat the &arge &sf U&&e8 ma propmly
be la16 at appellant ‘a doe,.
. . . . .I
IIoaorbbleTom Seay, m 9
Without going further ta quote froa addithnal
eaaee re2atlve to th e g u r er lbJMt
a l invo lved, It to deemed
eufS%olent to atete that ve heve aereiully rarieved the w
aeaea Qitud in the 8naotat~oM under !&Otion 40, Title 27,
of USOA, the applloclble leatlmu of the Pederal Wgeat, the
sxhauatlve treatment given the l ubjaot in A. L. E. emI many
other authorltiea touahing 0~ the 4generil lub jeoSlnoe t.
the prltxlpler aruaounoedlo the a8888 just quoted from have
never luaoeaatully been ahallen&ed, it ia thou&t tUt thoae
a6888 nL&ht be wad aa ~uldea lo oaeedlnga Sor the for-
Seltuca al automobile8 wader the p” e-8 Liquor Control Aat.
Pro8 t&e luthorltloa thw revleved, lnoludlng the
apDlUable protlaiona of the TUIi Liquor Control Aat, ve
vlll attempt to dlaouaa the qU8OtiOlU raioed in your lottor
vlthout reiexenoe to thalr n8nerloal order OS luah queatlone.
It ia only aStor the final aaavl#iloa OS the per-
000 la ohargo of the automobile at the tlm of it0 la ix u r a
that any prooeedlng uy be had relative to the ZorSeltora~
After the flaal ooavlotion,vlriohm8y bram lnatmee8 owa-
sum m month8 eapaoiall~ ii t&a dotendaat appeala, a
petltloa lhould be filed la 'a oourt ef Wmptent jiWlOdl~-
tiffn." The oaae la om in ram uul the mHXmAUe 10 tbr
real 6oSeadaut. %se petltlon should aUe@ the aeisure and
olrgumatuuses lurroundiiqg abm u veU u the deaarlption
of the automobile. It should allege the nay of the peraoA
in o h a r gOaS mm at th etime o f the lUur e and the raot
OS auoh peraonw8 f-1 aonvlotlm. It vould AOt be lA&wOpW
ve thlak to allege that the ptoaeedbing,la one to eatorae the
forS*lture that ha0 raauZted bin&r Seattan 44 US &tie18 I
OS the T#aa Llquox Control Aat from the coovlotlon OS un-
lavful trensportation 0P lntoxicetlng liquor, 1,n the comila-
alon of vhleh offense the m&mobile v&a used (Phariar Y.
kirbxoqgh, 128 9. U. (ad) 661). The prayer should bolt Sor
a Judiaial dea~ee or foFielture and far an ordbc of aale end
the dlrtrf~butioaof the prooeed8 of the bale in aoaordanoe
vlth the prorlalona oZ &tie& I, Seatiofa 44, of the Tenr
Liquor CQatrol Aat. ;Ln ordar to .&ford a;11 interested
part188 ~1. opportunity of being heud, the petition lhould
be prersnted to the Judge OS the oourt hbviag uriadictlon
who should a& the matter dovn for hewlug, 8l i ovl.ng auffl-
aient tl.ae for thoae intoreated in ltmh oue to be notlSi86.
ii0 partioular fore of notlee la pra8orlbed. In thir aonneo-
tion, Ve think it vould be popor far tho8e oliioera Sntsrsat-
cd in the proaeautlon to meertala, &a beat they 0~1. thoae
olaimfag am fntereat in the rahiela W to aobify auoh pa&tlea
Bonorable TOA Seay, page 10
of euah hearlog. Neither the form of the notice nor the
length of time required are presorlbed. If the owner of the
whlale has been duly notlfled of the hearing end fails to
appear, doubtless his rights in the vehicle will. be terminat-
ed. If the owuer has not beeh notified of the hearing and
does not aFppear and assert his olalm, then the vehicle should
be advertised as prescribed In the statutes. After the hear-
Ing at whI?h interested partlea mu& have had an opportunity
to be head, and If ~the ou Is ordered eold, it is provided:
The orfloer making the aale . . . shall.
pay aU. liens, aooording to their prlorltlsa,
which are eetabllshed by Intervention or other-
wlae at said hearing or In other prooeed1nc-s
brought for said :.~~;~pose.~
What Is a “oourt of oompetent jurIsdIotion* aa
used in the Act? Obviously the orimlnal prooeediag against
the defendant must be brought in the county aourt. Under the
In the many rederal oases reviewad,
~~a~~~~fg~~(up”~s~u~~l~rou~, oupra, It would afrpear that
upon the oonriotlon or thtl one In charge; the automobile Is
forfeited alpso laoto.* Any prOOe8dlng brought thereafter
to %ieouxew or *enform and forfelture,” as those terms are’
used in Pharlss v. YAbrough 1s neoessarily aaoillary pr
*a mere Incident to the arintlnal 0asa.w In M.llIs, et al.,
v. State, 150 3. w. 904, it Is saldr
“That provision or our oontltutlon (artl-
01s 3, 1 81, whlo:l gives the dlatriat oourt jur-
lsdlcti~n *or all suits In behalf or tho atata
to recover penaltied, forfeitures end esaheate,*
applies and has aLeaye been ooustrued by all the
oourts to mimn oxolusl.vely aivll oases. And haa
never been oonstrued by my court to apply to
forfeitures of bhfl ‘bonds In orlmminal. oases. Both
the Suprend Cmrt and this oourt hold that the ror-
feiture of .&ail boixls in orkLual oases is a
Aere Inoident to tha orlalnal oaso, and that,
while aft’er the rendition Of the judgmmt nisi
the proceedings shall be conducted 6,s oIvI1
oases, yet that all suoh eases are criminal
oaees and Noel; oivil oasc;a, and the state oen-
not a peal therefrom. 2330 8000 or th0 ~a333
oolla e ed from this and tho Supreme Court ln
S&tiOn 437, p. 320, Of White’3 C. C. Y.*
Bonorabke TOD buy, page ll
8inoe a proauding to fwf4lt I ball bond "18 8
mere imldent to the orlminal aa88," YO thlmk that by the
um analogy, a prweediag to seawe or enforoe a forfeiture
of an automobile under the Texas Liquor Control Aot is llk4-
uise P 'mere incident of th4 orftinel oa8e." It ir not ala
original prooeedlng but la merely anailla~y to the ~rim.lnal
oaure, a8 18 pointed out in United St&tea V. One Stephena Auto-
mobile, rupra. If th4 oounty court ha8 juri8diotion of the
original offen80, it neoe88arily follow8 tUt it bar jurlr-
diotlen of a subsequent prooeoding to "enforoe the forfeiture
that Mu ruulted under the statute.' The value of the m&to-
mobile, in our opinion, 1s not material in detemfniag jwir-
diotlon. Undsr authority of Yllli8, et al., v. State, ve
thlnktba prooeeding(toenf~oethe forfeiture shouldbe
filed on the ariai dwkst.
Par a fuller under8tanding of the Qwrtlon herein
dlmua8ed some of th4 deoirions pertain&& to evlden4e and
burden of proof vi11 be noticed.
Under &otlon 40 of 27 USCA (11 Stat. X5), a8 well
a8 under 8eotion 44 of Artiole I of the Tour Liquor Control
Aot, the bunion 18 upon the lienor to ertabU8b that hi8 lien
is bona fide and that It vu oreated without hi8 having any
notiae or rouon to believe tht the wryI- vehicle Ya8 be-
yUyu% or was to be wed, for the llle&al tren8portatlon
.
T&B good faith of the partier, and l8ek of knowledge
or reuon to sp ehend, on the venda'8 pt, that the vehiole
upon mhicrhthe f@
fen is t&m or roeerred will be rued in vio-
l&ion of the law, mut be ert8blMMd a8 of the date of itr
we&ion.
This burden 18 4~ually inombent upon tbe b88ignor
~;h~ta881gm4 of the lien, uhloheveP ir alaimlq rights
United States V. One Btiak Coupe Auto 58 Ped.
(28) 387: See al80 47 A.L.R. 1058; 61 A.L.R. 54; 73 A.L.R,
1093; and 82 A.L.R. 609.
the ease of C. I. T. Corporation v. tinlted States,
40 Fed. (23 82~,byClrcuitCourt of A la, on4 c&o~;18e
purohesed an automobile from one !&arrhaiY O'R481.
ifter tb4 8alr the purohaee note VU dlrpomd of to the C.I.T.
Corporatlan, vblsh ie a dealer in thlr aheraoter of oommeroial
p P wr Both Lee and O'Seal lived in a 813~11town In South
l
Pakcts where the 8ale ooourred. The purchaser of the not4
had its offioe in a distant oity f8r fra the p]uOO of the Ori-
girulsale. It i8 UndiS uted -t th. c. 1. 9. CWJIOWtiOn had
no notice of the ooniempt ated Illegal we of the ou, or before
sefare, of th8 8otual illegal u8e. Tha Ooivt held however that
if O'Jleal,the original seller, had SUObnotloo, that 8uOh
notlae would ba imputed to his Usl&nae, C. I. 4. ~OrpOXWtion.
In thlr o8se the Court aaldr
"@Hotloe,l within this st8tute, ham tha or-
dinary legal meanlPg of knowledge of the lllewl
U88 or Of faOt8 vhloh vould put l reuoerbly
dent man upon lnqulr~. The lvldemo1 es a8 fo ‘“--
1OUSc O'Xe8l had 1lVed all hi8 life in XuroA,
a uall olty in South Dnkota. For about 8evua
year8 he Md been in the gro8ery bu8inrsa and f6r
about eighteen months had been rellin(, mutwO-
bile8 8180. Xe had knoun G. A. Lu fa nbout
8even y u r S M d h a d l ‘Sp Uk iR g UQUb int~OO’ With
hi8 son,Eelwyke. B, knw that C. A. Leo had
been in the pool ml BuIiuas, but fop l po~lod
of )a feu youlrg he Us not doln& uythiae. At
thetlms of the 8810 he did not know thebrui-
ness of &nrr Lse aor at Us reputatlan and made
no ln~ulry in th8t regtard. Xenry Lu h6d pur-
ehued 8 Xudson oar thsretofwe md &d browt
y$yoruto O’Heal in rogud to the urohue
iie testlfled ha did not ELw of the
OO~te8@4& illOP;ti USe Of tb OU Or Of it8 be-
ing so used before it Ui selsed by th8 fedor
authOPltle8. Xe ude no lnvestigat~on of th8
bu8¶.WSS Of C. A. tie or fOr what pU.VpOMth8
oar vu to be used, but did knbutlat ha U
p=m~ty~ PO meet this proof, the government
established th8t the purahUer ukd his wmleted
~$~e~op.her in 7011 uad mere urtlvely
ootleggw 8t the time of this
A prohibition offioer, a deputy 8herlff,
the kef of polioe, and a patrolman te8tlfled
po8ltlvely that tha reput*tlon of the pumhaser,
at the time of the sale in -on, was that he vu
8 ‘bootlegger. * On the other haad, there was
the testimony of on@ Yltness, Mother autowJbile
dealer vho had sold one of the I&es e 6cU?,th8t
he did not know of this reputbtlon.
ilonorable Tar Se8y, pa&e 4
“Considering th8t HurQn 18 BOt 8 large
plaoe and therefore Mtters of ganaral knowledge
oould roarcely eso8pe the rttentlon of 8 urahant
who had lived there ill of his life and been
engaged in bullliIe88 for seven years, the oourt
WAS in no ulse bound to belleve th8 testinony of
O'Weal that he had never haam of the reputatlon
of C. A. be. Ubue tha queatlon requlrlng
proof involves 8 state of knoV&dge or of ml&,
triers of fast ju8tly relf upon oiroumtbnbes
mhlab oould shov knovledge or rtate of rind
r8th4r than upon the bare st8t4nent of the ln-
tensted party himself. WrO it 18 8hOVnby
lvldanoe, vhloh tha trial oourt believea, that
the purahaser h8d the fen4ral raputatlon in a
8~11 tom of b ein& l bootlegger' at the tlma
of the creation of the lien, tha llener oannot
bs held to have ocmaltulvely lot8bllshed laok of
notlue merely by te8tlfybq that ti did not than
knou Qf suoh bualness or of ruab reput8tlon.
Uh4re suah a ret of olxomstaaee8,18 sham by the
evldanae, It is for tha trial oourt to datermine
vhathar th8 llenor did oc did not have knouledge
Of 8uOh bWin*SS OP &‘OpUt~tiOXl Uld 8Wh klWll&d438
votid ZM notloe vfthln t&a above statute. zb
burdenof proof is upontha lionor toestabll8h
laok of notlo thitti stat.8 V. ih8 DO&8
Coupe, etc., 1'D. G. ) I.3 F. (Pd) 1Olgj United
St&es v. Qna Ii. Y. Shaw Automobile Taxi, eta*,
(0. C.) 272 P. 4 1, and ZIholUday v. Ilnlted
St&es (C. C. A. 3 25 8. (24) 372, 374."
For other aue8 holdlngth8tthe burden is ontha
o~i8mnttoe8tab~ahthathi8 lien is bonafide andVU !aada
vlthout notice that the vehl6le vas to be rued in vlolatfng
th8 liquor laws, see The llarbour Srader, 42 Fed. (2d) 858,
and U. S. v. Bailey, 42 ied. (ad) 908.
A& Amg
BY
B. O.Pharr
EOPrdb ASSiStAnt
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion