Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

United States v. Buzzo

85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 125

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1873-12-22
Topic
litigation

85 U.S. 125 21 L.Ed. 812 18 Wall. 125 UNITED STATES v. BUZZO. October Term, 1873 ON certificate of division of opinion between the judges of the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Michigan; the case being thus: An Internal Revenue Act1 of 1866 enacts 'That any person who shall make . . . or issue any instrument, document, or paper, of any kind or description whatsoever, . . . for the payment of money, without the same being duly stamped, . . . with intent to evade the provisions of this act, shall for every such offence forfeit the sum of $50,' &c. Under this act an information was filed against one Buzzo, charging him, as clerk of the Calumet Mining Company, with making and issuing a certain written and printed evidence of money to be paid without the same being duly stamped, and with intent to evade the provisions of the act. The form of the paper was as follows, to wit: The defendant pleaded Not Guilty, and the jury found a special verdict, setting forth the circumstances under which he issued the draft in question, and others of the same character, which he did on behalf of the Calument Mining Company (a corporate body), at its mines in Michigan, in payment for labor and other things; the defendant being superintendent of the mines, and Seabury, the drawee of the draft, being the treasurer of the company at Boston, where the drafts were redeemed.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Buzzo. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
16 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Certified Questions An appellate court will decline to answer a question certified to it on a division of opinion between the judges below where it appears from the record that, due to a fatal defect in the proceedings, no judgment could be entered against the defendant in the court below on the pending suit; deciding the certified question under such circumstances would be of no avail. 85 U.S. at 128
  2. General — Internal Revenue — Stamp Duties — Criminal Intent Under the ninth section of the Internal Revenue Act of July 13, 1866, which penalizes the issuance of an unstamped instrument for the payment of money made "with intent to evade the provisions of this act," an intent to evade is of the essence of the offense; no judgment can be entered on a special verdict that finds the other elements of the offense but does not find such intent. 85 U.S. at 128
  3. Criminal Law & Procedure — Special Verdict Where a special verdict is imperfect or omits a finding essential to the offense such that no judgment can be rendered upon it, the verdict must be set aside and a venire de novo awarded. 85 U.S. at 128
UNITED STATES v. BUZZO,85 U.S. 125(1873)
UNITED STATESv. BUZZO.
OCTOBER TERM, 1873.
1. When, on a view of the record, it appears that from some fatal defect in the proceedings, no judgment can be entered against the defendant in the court below, on a suit there pending, this court will decline to answer a question certified to it on division of opinion between the judges of the Circuit Court, upon a contrary assumption. 2. On an information under the ninth section of the Internal Revenue Act of July 13th, 1866, which enacts that any person who shall issue any instrument,Page 126c., for the payment of money, without the same being duly stamped, "with intent to evade the provisions of this act, shall forfeit and pay," c., an intent to evade is of the essence of the offence, and no judgment can be entered on a special verdict which, finding other things, does not find such intent.
ON certificate of division of opinion between the judges of the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Michigan; the case being thus:

An Internal Revenue Actfn*of 1866 enacts

"That any person who shall make. . . . or issue any instrument, document, or paper, of any kind or description whatsoever, . . . . for the payment of money, without the same being duly stamped,. . . .with intent to evade the provisions of this act, shall for every such offence forfeit the sum of $50," c.

Under this act an information was filed against one Buzzo, charging him, as clerk of the Calumet Mining Company, with making and issuing a certain written and printed evidence of money to be paid without the same being duly stamped, andwith intent toevade the provisions of the act. The form of the paper was as follows, to wit:
------------------------------------------------------------ | [X.] [TEN.] | |CALUMET MINING COMPANY. | | | | CALUMET, MICH., June 25th, 1870. | | | |At sight pay to my order| | | |Ten Dollars, | | | |Value received, and charge the same to account of| | | | T.W. BUZZO, | | TO CHARLES W. SEABURY, Treasurer, Clerk. | | 114 State Street, Boston. | ------------------------------------------------------------


The defendant pleaded Not Guilty, and the jury found a special verdict, setting forth the circumstances under which he issued the draft in question, and others of the same character, which he did on behalf of the Calumet Mining Company (a corporate body), at its mines in Michigan, inPage 127payment for labor and other things; the defendant being superintendent of the mines, and Seabury, the drawee of the draft, being the treasurer of the company at Boston, where the drafts were redeemed. The special verdict stated that the drafts were issued without being stamped, but it did not state that this was donewith intent to evade the provisions of the act.

Upon the special verdict as thus found, the district attorney of the United States moved for judgment, and thereupon the question arose, whether, upon the facts stated in the verdict (and under certain provisions of the Internal Revenue Act, not necessary, in view of the point adjudged in the case by this court, here to be stated),fn*the instrument set forth in the information was subject to a stamp when issued. Which question, the judges being divided in opinion upon it, was certified to this court for decision.
Messrs. B.R. Curtis and J. Hubley Ashton, for the defendant:

The act of Congress expressly makes theintentto evade the provisions of the act a necessary ingredient of the offence defined by it. It is clear that it was necessary that the information should contain an allegation, as it does, that the omission of the stamp was withintentto evade the act, and that the jury could not have found the defendant guilty of the offence without finding an intentional omission of the stamp with the purpose of evading the act.

The special verdict, however, is entirely silent in regard to the matter of the intent of the defendant.

It does not find that, if the instrument was liable to stamp duty, it was issued without a stamp with intent to evade the act; and, therefore, however this court might answer the question certified for its decision, the Circuit Court could not enter judgment for the United States upon the verdict.

Therefore, this court will not decide the question upon which the judges of that court have divided in opinion, and will remand the cause to that court either with directions to award a new trial, or without any direction.Page 128Mr. G.H. Williams, Attorney-General, and Mr. S.F. Phillips,Solicitor-General, contra:

What is said by opposing counsel is not sufficient to prevent a response by this court to the question about which the judges below differed.

The facts (supposing the instrument to be liable to a stamp) show that the defendant hasactually evadedthe provisions of the act. In a similar casefn*this court has said:

"When the acts which create the obstruction [evasion] are in themselves unlawful, the intention to obstruct [evade] will be imputed to their author, although the attainment of other ends may have been his primary object."

This is in accordance with long established principles.fn†

To the same effect withUnited Statesv.Kirbyis a passage in Tidd's Practice:fn‡

"And if a special verdict on a mixed question of fact and law find facts from which this court can draw clear conclusions, it is no objection to the verdict that the jury have not themselves drawn such conclusions, and stated them as facts in the case."

Whatever may be the true doctrine in a case where the special verdict finds only suchevidenceas, in the judgment of a court, makes it competent for a jury to decide either positively or negatively as to a fact in question, it seems that if the evidence so found be such as should form the basis of an instruction by the court that from it the jurymust findin a particular way, it is immaterial whether the jury find the specific fact, or only theproofsof it. That is the case here.
Mr. Justice BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court.
As in this case the intent is the essence of the crime,fn§and is not found, no judgment can be entered on the verdict,Page 129whether the facts disclosed therein required a stamp to be affixed to the draft or not. To decide the question proposed, therefore, would avail nothing. An imperfect verdict, or one on which no judgment can be rendered, must be set aside, and avenire de novoawarded.fn*The case must therefore be dismissed.

It is proper to observe that in the case ofUnited Statesv.Isham,fn†recently decided by this court, we held that no stamp is required on drafts of the kind above described, when not exceeding ten dollars in amount.

CASE DISMISSED.
  1. Page 126 Act of July 13th, 1866 (§ 9, 14 Stat. at Large, 142), amendatory of the 158th section of the act of June 30th, 1864 (13 Id. 293). ↩
  2. Page 127 They may be seen in United Statesv. Isham, 17 Wallace, 496. ↩
  3. Page 128 United Statesv. Kirby, 7 Wallace, 482. ↩
  4. Page 128 Rexv. Furnival and Statev. Jones, as reported in Bennett Heard's Leading Criminal Cases, 2d vol. 45, with notes. ↩
  5. Page 128 2d vol. 897. ↩
  6. Page 128 1 Bishop's Criminal Procedure, § 280, or 2d edition, 523; Peoplev. Lehman, 2 Barbour, 218, 219. ↩
  7. Page 129 Bacon's Abridgment, title "Verdict" (M.); Tidd's Practice, 922, 9th ed.; Hollandv. Fisher, Orlando Bridgman, 187, 188. ↩
  8. Page 129 17 Wallace, 496. [The case had not been decided when the present one was argued. — REP.] ↩