Opinion
No. 38883.
April 27, 1953.
1. Forfeitures — defined.
The term forfeiture is a comprehensive one and expresses the result which follows from a failure to comply with the law, and in its meaning it is not restricted to forfeiture of money, goods or other property.
2. Forfeitures — statutes — construction of.
Forfeitures are not favored and statutes imposing forfeitures will be construed strictly and those relieving against forfeitures will be construed liberally.
3. Criminal law — immunity from prosecution statute.
In a suit to enjoin defendants from selling intoxicating liquor at their place of business they were both called as adverse witnesses and were compelled to give testimony which involved them actively in large sales of such liquor: Held that under the applicable statute they thereupon became immune from further prosecution of the suit against them. Sec. 2630, Code 1942.
Headnotes as approved by Hall, J.
APPEAL from the chancery court of Marshall County; HERBERT HOLMES, Chancellor.
Robt. B. Smith, for appellants.
It is the contention of the appellants that they were called upon to testify in this proceeding by the State as adverse witnesses and by virtue of Sec. 2630, Code 1942, that they could not refuse to testify and give information relative to their operations in connection with the violation of the prohibition laws of the State of Mississippi. However, they strongly contend that by virtue of said Sec. 2630, after they testified and were forced to give information relative to their operations that they were immune from any further proceedings in this cause and were not subject to any penalty or forfeiture, by virtue of the immunity given them by Sec. 2630. It is to be noted that neither of the defendants testified other than as adverse witnesses and neither of them offered any proof whatsoever.
This court has specifically passed on the point in question on two different occasions, and has on both occasions concisely and specifically upheld the position of the appellants. These cases are as follows: Malouf, et al. v. Gulley, State Tax Collector, 187 Miss. 331, 192 So. 2; and Serio v. Gulley, State Tax Collector, 189 Miss. 558, 198 So. 307.
There is no question but that the appellants in this case were required to assist the State, or the petitioners, and give evidence which subjected them to prosecution and penalties or forfeitures. This is very apparent from the record, inasmuch as at the conclusion of the testimony, the court ordered them to be taken into custody by the sheriff and held until they each made a two thousand dollar bond. In other words, they were actually deprived of their liberty and were arrested by the sheriff on order of the court. Had they been unable to make the Two Thousand Dollar bond, they would have been deprived of their liberty up to the present time.
In a very recent case handed down by the Supreme Court of the State of Florida, to-wit: Florida State Board of Architecture v. Seymour, 62 So.2d 1, the Supreme Court of that state, as a part of its decision, adopted and followed Malouf v. Gulley, 187 Miss. 331, 192 So. 2.
J.T. Patterson, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Appellants rely wholly upon the provisions of Sec. 2630, Code 1942, and the holding of this Court in the cases of Malouf, et al. v. Gully, State Tax Collector, 187 Miss. 331, 192 So. 2; Serio v. Gully, State Tax Collector, 189 Miss. 558, 198 So. 307, and a decision of the Supreme Court of the State of Florida.
Sec. 2630, Code 1942, provides that no person shall be excused from testifying before a grand jury, or before any court, or any cause or proceeding, criminal or otherwise, based upon, or growing out of any alleged violation of the liquor laws. Said section further provides, "But no person shall be prosecuted or subject to any penalty and forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing, concerning which he may testify, or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise, before the grand jury, or any court; . . ."
The appellants herein are not being "prosecuted or subject to any penalty or forfeiture" on any matter or thing concerning which they testified herein.
This Court, in the case of State ex rel. District Attorney v. White, 178 Miss. 502, 173 So. 456, held that a proceeding by the district attorney under Sec. 2646, Code 1942, was a "civil cause." The case at bar being a civil cause, the immunity granted by said Sec. 2630, Code 1942, as well as the Constitution, against prosecution, penalty or forfeiture, by anyone compelled to testify and give evidence of a self-incriminating nature, is not applicable to the proceedings in the case at bar.
The section under which the proceeding in the case at bar is brought authorizes the attorney general, any district attorney, county attorney, or any citizen or citizens, of the county in which such nuisance is alleged to be maintained, to file a petition in the chancery court for a writ of injunction against any place engaging in the unlawful traffic in liquor. Said section further provides, "And all rules of evidence and the practice and procedure that pertain to courts of equity generally in this state may be invoked and applied in any injunction procedure hereunder."
This Court having held that a proceeding under said Sec. 2646, Code 1942, is a "civil suit," and the statute limiting action thereunder to the filing of a petition in the chancery court by those expressly authorized therein to file same, and limiting the chancery court upon hearing to abate the alleged nuisance by writ of injunction, and further authorizing the chancery court to require the person or persons found to be the possessor or owner of such liquor to enter into a bond, for a period not exceeding two years from the date thereof, conditioned that the obligors therein will not violate any of the prohibition laws of the State during such period, removes the proceedings herein from the rules of evidence applicable in a criminal prosecution, wherein an accused compelled to testify against himself might be subject to prosecution, penalty and forfeiture.
This suit was brought in chancery by the State on the relation of the district attorney, joined by the county attorney and a constable, against the appellants praying for an injunction to prevent them from selling intoxicating liquor at their place of business in Marshall County operated under the name of Malone's Grocery.
At the trial, the State called both appellants as adverse witnesses for cross-examination and compelled them to testify. They admitted that they have been operating Malone's Grocery as partners, admitted that both retail and wholesale liquor licenses have been issued to this place of business by the collector of internal revenue, admitted the payment of black market taxes to the State in an amount of more than $30,000.00 on the illegal sales of intoxicating liquor, and admitted that they have unlawfully sold more than 10,000 cases of intoxicating liquor. At the conclusion of the evidence offered by the State, appellants offered no testimony but made a motion to dismiss the suit on the ground that when they were compelled to testify against themselves they were granted immunity from further prosecution of the suit. The chancellor overruled this motion, entered a decree requiring appellants to enter into bond in the amount of $2,000.00 each, conditioned not to violate the liquor laws for a period of two years, and ordered the sheriff to take both appellants into custody and hold them until the bonds were given.
From that action they appeal and present the sole question whether they should have been granted immunity from further prosecution of the suit because of their having been compelled to testify against themselves.
Section 2630, Code of 1942, in the chapter on Intoxicating Liquors, provides: "No person shall be excused from attending and testifying before a grand jury, or before any court, or in any cause or proceeding, criminal or otherwise, based upon or growing out of any alleged violation of this chapter, or any amendment thereof, on the ground and for the reason that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of him, may tend to criminate him or subject him to a penalty or forfeiture. But no person shall be prosecuted or subject to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter or thing, concerning which he may testify, or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise, before the grand jury, or any court . . ."
This suit was brought under Section 2646, Code of 1942, which is in the same code chapter relating to intoxicating liquors, and is therefore within the express terms of said Section 2630. It will be noted that the immunity granted by the statute is not only against a penalty but also against a forfeiture; it is not confined to a criminal case in a criminal court but is extended to any cause or proceeding, criminal or otherwise, before any court.
(Hn 1) In 37 C.J.S., Forfeitures, Sec. 1, p. 4, it is said that the term forfeiture "is a comprehensive one and expresses the result which flows from a failure to comply with the law." It has a broad and general meaning and is not restricted to forfeiture of money, goods, or other property. Ibid. Sec. 3, p. 6. (Hn 2) Forfeitures are not favored and statutes imposing forfeitures will be construed strictly, and those relieving against forfeitures will be construed liberally. Ibid. Sec. 4, p. 8.
In the case of Malouf v. Gully, State Tax Collector, 187 Miss. 331, 192 So. 2, Malouf was compelled to testify against himself in a suit for injunction to abate his place of business as a nuisance and for the imposition of penalties. The Court quoted and referred to Section 1991, Code of 1930, which is the same as Section 2630, Code of 1942, and with reference to its application said: "We are of the opinion that . . . Malouf, by his testimony, was rendered immune to further prosecution of this cause, and we reach that conclusion upon the following considerations: Manifestly, under the allegations and prayer of the bill, it was sought to subject Malouf to penalties and forfeitures. They are expressly provided for by the statutes. It is argued, however, that, by the temporary injunction, the court only enjoined the further prosecution of the business and imposed no penalty or forfeiture. The term `forfeiture' has a very comprehensive meaning, and expresses the result which flows from a failure to comply with the law. 25 C.J. Sec. 43, p. 1169. Malouf's admission of guilt subjected him to the forfeiture of his liquor business and his dry goods and grocery business." In the case at bar the appellants were remanded to the custody of the sheriff and deprived of their liberty until they could make the bond required of them, and this was done upon the testimony which they had been compelled to give against themselves. The Malouf case was followed by this Court in Serio v. Gully, State Tax Collector, 189 Miss. 558, 198 So. 307, and by the Supreme Court of Florida under a similar statute of that State in the case of Florida State Board of Architecture v. Seymour, 62 So.2d 1.
It is not our province to write the statutes, but only to construe them as written. (Hn 3) Under the express terms of the statute the appellants are entitled to immunity and their motion should have been sustained by the lower court notwithstanding the fact that they are evidently among the largest liquor dealers in the State. The decree of the lower court will therefore be reversed and judgment will be here entered dismissing the bill of complaint. This is, of course, without prejudice to the right to institute a similar suit upon any facts originating after April 26, 1952, the date of the decree herein.
Reversed and judgment here.
McGehee, C.J., and Holmes, Arrington and Lotterhos, JJ., concur.