United States v. Chouteau

Mb,. Justice Field, after stating the facts, delivered the opinion of the court. As seen by the statement of the case, each breach of the condition of the bond in suit, of the class designated by o^ld numbers, consists in the omission of the distiller to make;the-.required ■ entries in the book provided in. sect. 3308. The petition alleges that, by “ means of the said omission,” the distiller was enabled to defraud, and did defraud the United States of the tax imposed by law upon the spirits produced at his distillery: The answer denies this allegation, and avers that whatever fraud was committed upon the United States was effected through other means. ' The demurrer admits that averment to be true, and the question is thus presented whether a party seeking damages ^ór. a specified breach of duty is entitled to judgment in his favor, when admitting on.the record that whatever damages he may have sustained . resulted from other causes. The case is not brought for any. tax alleged to be due to the United States, which they would be entitled to recover, whatever the, cause of its-non-payment. In such a case it would be of no consequence whether the cause assigned for the default of the party was the true one or not; the obligation to the government would be the same. Here a specific omission of duty on the part of the distiller is alleged, for which it is sought to charge both him and his sureties' on their bond. Their liability is only to the extent of the damages sustained. .If none resulted to the United States from the omission stated, none can be recovered either against him or his sureties. The law does not affix any specific penalty for the omission. If, therefore, the allegations of the petition were simply traversed, the government would be compelled to .prove, not only the omission complained of, but that by means of *609 it the tax on the spirits produced was lost, which constitutes .the damages alleged. It would not be sufficient to show that by other omissions of duty the government was thus defrauded, for that would be to change the entire ground of the action, the specific gravamen-of the complaint. Now, the demurrer admits that the ground of complaint — the specific breach of duty stated — did not cause the damages charged, but- that whatever damages were sustained by the United States were effected by other means. Therefore the action, so far as damages are claimed for the particular omission of duty mentioned, must fail. It.is true that the preaches of duty, which are stated by the defendants in their answer as the means by which the United States were defrauded, are a series of stupendous frauds, for which the guilty parties deserve severe punishment; still they ■were none .the less available as a defence to an action charging to other causes' the’ damages which they produced. It is ’certainly one way of defending against the charge of a wrongful act .for which damages are sought, to show that, notwithstanding the wrong committed, the damages resulted from other causes, however ■ objectionable a pleading might be with averments to that .effect instead of a distinct traverse of the allegations of the complaint. If, for example, a party should charge another with inflicting upon his person a wound by which he lost an arm, -it would be a good defence to- show that the loss resulted from unskilful medical treatment or neglect and hot from the wound inflicted. So here, it is enough for. the sureties to show that the loss to the government was produced by other means than’ the particular breach of duty by their principal, of which the government complains. It is- of no consequence to them, so far as the present action is concerned, how many other sins of omission or commission he may have committed, if they can show that the particular damage claimed was not the result of the one charged. As to the breaches- of duty in the assignments of the Class . designated by even numbers, we are of’ opinion that the compromise with-the «government pleaded: is-a complete defence against a recovery of the penalty claimed. Each 'breach alleged consists in the removal • by the distiller qf spirits pro *610 duced at his distillery to a place other than the distillery warehouse, without first paying the tax imposed thereon. The penalty prescribed for this offence was intended as part punishment for it, and may be enforced, equally as' the additional fine and imprisonment, by criminal prosecution. It was not intended in any sense as. a substitute for the tax required, or as any abatement of it when recovered. This is evident from the fact that it may be applied to those who have aided or abetted in the removal, whether the distiller or one hav-' ing no interest in -the spirits. So, too, the payment of the tax may be made after the removal, and yet the penalty.not be discharged; it could still be imposed upon the offending party. It may be questioned whether the only mode, for a recovery of the penalty is not by indictment; but assuming that it may be recovered in a civil action, the compromise pleaded clivers the penalties here claimed. Two indictments have been found' against the distiller, one of which contains counts for the specific offences, which constitute the whole ground and cause of the present action. Under the authority of an act of Congress, a, compromise with the government waseffécted, by which a specific- sum was paid by him, and received by the govern.ment, “in full satisfaction,-.compromise, and settlement of said, indictments and 'prosecutions,” which were accordingly dismissed and abandoned.. That compromise necessarily covered the causes or • grounds of the prosecutions, and consequently; l-eleased the party from liability for the offences'charged and any further punishment for them. The answer avers that the removals of distilled spirits set forth in the assignment of breaches of the condition of the bond are the same removals recited in the indictments, and that- all the evidence necessary to establish the breaches assigned would havé been necessary and competent under the indictments. The two proceedings, the civil action and the criminal prosecution, so far as they ■ relate to offences under sect. 3296, are based upon the same transactions. • • : • The question, therefore, is presented' whether .‘sureties on a distiller’s bond shall be subjected- to the penalty attached to the commission of an offence, when the principal has effected *611 a full and complete compromise with the government, under the sanction of an act of Congress,, of prosecutions ■ based upon the same offence and designed to secure the same penalty.. ' Admitting that the penalty .may be- recovered in a civil action, as well as by a criminal prosecution, it is still as a punishment for the infraction of the law. The term “ pen- ’ alty ” involves' the idea of punishment, and its character is not changed by the .mode in which it is inflicted, whether by a civil action or á criminal prosecution.' The "compromise pleaded mu§£ operate for the protection of the distiller against subsequent proceedings as fully as a former conviction or acquittal. He has been punished in the amount paid upon the’ settlement for the offence with which he was charged, and that should end the present action, according to the principle on which a former acquittal or conviction may be invoked to protect against a second punishment for the saíne offence. To hold otherwise would be to sacrifice a great principle to the mere form of procedure, and to render settlements with the government delusive' and useless. Whilst there, has .been no -conviction or judgment in the criminal proceedings against the distiller here, the compromise must on principle have the same effect. The government through its appropriate officer.s has indicated, under the authority of an act of Congress, the punishment with which it will be .satisfied. The offending party has responded to the indication and satisfied the government. It would, therefore, be at variance with right and justice to exact in a new form, of action the same penalty. For, as it was justly said by this court in Ex parte Lange, speaking through Mr. Justice Miller, “ If there is anything settled in the jurisprudence of England and America,, it is that no man can be twice lawfully punished for the same offence. .And, though there have been nice questions in the application of this rule to cases in which the act charged was such as to come1 within the definition of more than one statutory offence, or to-bring the party within the jurisdiction of more than one court, there has never been any doubt of its entire and complete protection of' the .party where a second punishment is proposed in the same court, on the *612 same facts,- for the same statutory offence. The principle finds expression in more than one form in the maxims of the com-. mon l*w.” 18 Wall. 168, 168. Judgment affirmed. Note. — In United States v. Ulrici, error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri, which was submitted at the same time, Ms. Justice Eield delivered the opinion of the court. , This case involves substantially the same questions'considered in United States v. Chouteau. Here the principal on the bond in suit pleaded guilty to the indictments found against him, and was fined f1,000 and imprisoned for one day. The punishment inflicted was for offences which are set forth in the petition in this action as breaches of the condition of the bond. This difference in the two cases does not affect the principle upon which the first was decided. Upon its authority the judgment is Affirmed.