to the construction proper to be placed on the statute under consid

eration.

Forfeitures are odious in the eye of the law, and it is a cardinal principle that statutes of forfeiture shall be construed with the utmost strictness. The forfeiture here is imposed in the penal clause of a penal statute; and Mr. Bishop, (1 Crim. Law, § 250,) using the early English of the old common-law jurists, lays it down, in respect to penal laws, that "no case is to be brought by construction within a statute while it falls not within all its words. If a case is fully within the mischief to be remedied, and is even of the same class and within the same reason as other cases enumerated, still, if not within the words, construction will not' be permitted to bring it within the statute." If, therefore, a statute says that W. E. Overton, on conviction of having committed an offense against its provisions, shall be punished by fine and imprisonment, and shall forfeit "his vessel" employed in the commission of the offense, the statute cannot be enlarged by construction to mean that he shall forfeit the vessel of another person. It can be construed to mean that he shall forfeit only the vessel owned by himself. It cannot be construed to mean any vessel which he employed in committing the offense.

Forfeitures being odious to the law, if the legislature intends that one man's property shall be forfeited for another man's offense, it should, and, I may add, always does, so declare in express, explicit, and unmistakable language. Neither Overton nor any seaman, fireman, engineer, or cook on board the steamer French could, by violating the fishing laws of Virginia under consideration, do more than forfeit any boat or craft or net or vessel which he himself actually owned, and no verdict of a jury found against Overton under this law could work a forfeiture of another's property.

Independently of this consideration, there was no warrant of law for the particular judgment of condemnation and sale which was rendered against this steamer, the J. W. French. The forty-sixth section of the one hundredth chapter of the Code simply provides for the detention of a vessel which has been employed in committing an offense, as a security for the payment of the fine and costs adjudged against the offender who used her. It directs the vessel to be held until the recognizance required of the defendant be given, or until he be acquitted; and, if judgment be given against the defendant, it requires it to be made "part of the judgment of the court that, if the penalty and costs be not forthwith paid," the vessel shall be sold, and the proceeds accounted for as under execution. If this provision

of law had been complied with, the steamer J. W. French would have been instantly released. The judgment against the vessel was void in having been couched in terms wholly unauthorized by the statute. both in respect to the vessel and to the disposal of the proceeds of its sale. It was, as to the owner of the vessel, void in not having employed the alternative words peremptorily directed to be inserted by the statute. No alternative was given to the owner of the vessel or her master to redeem her possession by the payment, even “forthwith," of the fine and costs adjudged against Overton, which, in point of fact, were paid forthwith. Not only was this requirement violated, but, without the warrant of any law known to the statutes of Virginia, this libelant's property was ordered to be sold for Overton's offense-itself pronounced by the jury to have been of the most trivial character.

The judgment of condemnation and sale, being without warrant of law, could confer no right upon the sheriff to the custody of the vessel. His possession was tortious, and he held her against the process of this court only as a trepasser. I will so decree.

In regard to The Steamer Grace, heard at the same time with the case of The French, I do not think she can be held, under the law of March 6, 1882, liable to forfeiture for the act of one conceded not to have been her owner, and I will so decree in her case.

END OF CASES IN VOL. 13 ·

of law had been complied with, the steamer J. W. French would have been instantly released. The judgment against the vessel was void in having been couched in terms wholly unauthorized by the statute, both in respect to the vessel and to the disposal of the proceeds of its sale. It was, as to the owner of the vessel, void in not having employed the alternative words peremptorily directed to be inserted by the statute. No alternative was given to the owner of the vessel or her master to redeem her possession by the payment, even “forth. with," of the fine and costs adjudged against Overton, which, in point of fact, were paid forthwith. Not only was this requirement violated, but, without the warrant of any law known to the statutes of Virginia, this libelant's property was ordered to be sold for Overton's offense-itself pronounced by the jury to have been of the most trivial character.

The judgment of condemnation and sale, being without warrant of law, could confer no right upon the sheriff to the custody of the ves sel. His possession was tortious, and he held her against the process of this court only as a trepasser. I will so decree.

In regard to The Steamer Grace, heard at the same time with the case of The French, I do not think she can be held, under the law of March 6, 1882, liable to forfeiture for the act of one conceded not to have been her owner, and I will so decree in her case.

END OF CASES IN VOL. 13 ·