James Moore Wayne

“ That if the goods seized had been fairly and bon a fide purchased by the claimants, without any knowledge by them of their being liable to seizure on the part of the United States, and were, at the time of the seizure, openly exposed by them for sale in their store, the United States cannot recover under the sixty-sixth or sixty-eighth section of said act of 1799, even though the goods had been fraudulently or falsely invoiced or entered, provided the claimants were in no way parties thereto. ”

“ It was afterwards noticed and assented to by the Attorney-General of the United States, in his argument in the case of the 1960 Bags of Coffee, 8 Cranch, 398; and has always been considered, from the time it was made, as the proper interpretation of a statute providing for a forfeiture for an offence, either of goods or their value. No case can be found in our own or the English courts in conflict with it. ”

“ To oblige an innocent purchaser to defend his vendor, or perhaps his more remote vendor, from every imputation of fraud that may be brought against him, though unconnected with the goods bought by him, and of which he could have had no knowledge, would be to impose a hardship so intolerable as to be revolting to every sense of justice; and yet perhaps it is the necessary consequence of the construction now complained of.
On the part of the United States, Mr. ”

“ Notes
↑ Where no statute interferes, the court has the power to modify the instructions asked in accordance with what it deems the law to be. Castle v. Bullard, 23 How., 172, 190; Pleak v. Chambers, 7 B. Mon. (Ky.) ”