The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1843-11-30
U. =. District Court.


WEDsEspAY, Nov. 2e-Richard and Benjamin Kid U.s.
- Swarttcout This action for the recovery Of
import duty and interest paid in 1857 TIN. port 70 i ne
nell Minturn Co, as agents for the plaintiffs on guam.
ty Of American wheat and -four reshipped out oil bond
from England The difficulty arose out OF the construc-
ton Of the Of congress appeared that Mess Grin
nell Co. of this city shipped quantity Of wheat and
-four Of American produce, to their correspondents IN
England, by whom sale OF portion was made to the
plaintiffs and which portion was re.shpped and consgn
ed for sale on account of the plaintiffs to Messrs Grnnel
Co. On the arrival OF the several quantities, the
Messrs Grinnell Co claimed the exemption from duty
which was denied on the ground that the portion having
been sold foreign soil and to foreign house was de-
and could not be allowed to land at an Ame
rican port az American produce The Messrs Orinneu
paid under protest written and verbal the duties claim
ed which at that time amounted to $3l36 &c. The need
proof that the wheat and -four were American pro-
duce was made the time to the satisfaction OF the col
ector and the naval officer although the District Aor
claimed that not sufficiently apparent on the
piled with to the red ettef The Court however differed
with the learned counsel for the United States The
comptroller at Washington sustained the collector In his
course and the passing to and frt Of the papes they
some how or other could be found when required by
Messrs Grinnel Co The -four barrels were shown to
have had the brand Of the American shipper on them
The District oncy said that he had to trial not
much to defend the collector as to allow
ton for had the duty been paid by them wrongfuly
then just that they should be refunded by the
government He however thought that indepsndrnt o.
bished Of the identity of the -four This denied by
the counsel for the plaintiff: and the Court in charging
obsery that the wheat &c of American produce
then was entitled to be reshpded from any foreign port
| to an American port free Of duty-that the iden-
ty of the goods in question was in the opinion OF the
court fully established especially the -four as the barrels
bore brand ofhe American shipper and the implca
ton that the contents the OF the identi
ty the wheat impossible to prove that from any
natural distinction The only way then to establish 1t to
the satisfaction OF the Collector and Naval Officer was by
sw orn documents and they allowed at the time that they
satisfied that the poducewas ofAmercan growth The
question OF fact being disposed Of the question Of law then
arose whether under the statute the Collector had
had not right to levy duty The Court Of opin
ion had that rightha it the intention Of the
statute protect the growth and manufacture OF Amer
can produce and not the American merchant. II was
made expressly with regard to the original growing and
by future transfer sale, and therefore American
prod,ce could not pay duty The Jury 10 decide
whether the protest required by the statute to be made at
the time Of paying the duty had been sufficiently shewn
in proof il So then they would return verdict for the
plaintiffs in full with interest The Jury without hesa
ton found verdict Of s49l5 % for tine plaintiffs
There being other ready, the Court adjourned
to 10 O'Clock this day There will be criminal cases
tried this eek.