New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1847-05-17
Law Courts

T'Nfryp SrATys CrRcCrr CoURT-BstOfe Judge Mel
son-Alieai SPozs0n vs. Cornsltzs " La'Trence CoAec
Tor The plaintiffs imported 10 April l-i5. quantity
Of India rubber shoes In the bark Lowell, from Para
south America. aud paid under protest about s@ouO
duties They contend that the shoes. as imported con
stituted India rubber nusctured and entitled 10
be adoitted tree and seek recover back the amount
ofdutles paid. with interest
By one section Of the Tsa Act it s provided that on
India. rubber Oicloh, webbing shoes braces or sus
penders or other fabrics Manufactured articles com
posed wholly or in part Of Indie rubber duty OF 50 per
cent. sd val shall be paid.
Another section says thai, ndiaruober 10 bottles or
sheets or otherwise manufactured shall be tree.
lis contended for plaintiff that lnds-rubber shoes ss
imported In the rough state similar 70 lndisruooer
bottles.
I, was shown hat India rubber obtained from the
milky juice Of several plants which are natives OF the
torrd zone the csOutchouc ia the principal which Is
said 90 resemble button ball tree lncisons are
made Ia the tree and the milk caught Ia little cups
whence they poured into trough or tub and tne
shoe formed by frequently dipping the mould or las,
into the liquid 10 IS dips being required 70 GET sum
cent Of the gam mlk 10 form the shoe The latter
Is then placed 10 the sun % dry and exposed 10 ne &C
ton Of smoke from burning knot which gives 1t the
color
It wss shown that the shoes after this must undergo
process, such as trimming lasting vanishing &C
before being 81 for use.
Some elegant specimens OF India rubber shoes with
leather soes such Manufactured here were
shown a contrast 10 the manufactured India rubber
shoe and the manufactured a. imported
The Court charged the question 70 be whether the
process Of forming the shoes imported was not max
ing India rubber from some other substance ana that IL
required farther manufacturing in order 70 constitute In
da rubber shoes. The jury considered the latter and
gave verdict for plaintiffs Of $500 =, being principal
and interestPor plaintiffs Messrs Edward Gurus r
Hall Ogden Hoffman and 3 Sanscey. FOR defendant
Mr. Butler Z. District Attorney, who gave notice OF
an Intention Of appeal
CIRCUIT CoURr-This Court adjourned yesterday for
the term The next term will commence lst June.
---------
CIRCUIT CoURT-In Chsmbers--Before Judge
Edmonds-Mr. Henry p. WaDmsker, public admins
traitor under the late CITY Government having refused
20 resign his Office 10 Mr.. James ;. 1hayer, who was
appointed by the Common Council on Tuesday, In his
place order issued for him TO show cause why
be 80 refuses Mr.. Jas T. Brady appeared in his be-
half and Mr. d Field for Mr. Tbsyer. In answer 10
the writ il denied under the I'd section of the 10th
article Ofthe Constitution, that the Common Coun
Gil have night to remove the public administrator or
10 appoint successor; il WAS commended in reply,
sgreesby 10 the terms of LIST Rev stat ia that the ap
poiniment was legal, and that the Common Council
have such power Judge f. will probably render de.
cision on the question too day.
H0beas COrpns.-Two persons who were passengers
board the British brig Thetus from England. and de-
tanned witnesses against the captain (who was pro
ceCced against under the late set tor bringing cOnvcs
10 this port other passengers were brought UP
and their discharge demanded Judge +. considered
that they not legally detained and ordered their
discharge.
SUPERIOR CoURT--Before ChefJustce Jones and
Judges oakley ana NhnueT pOel.-D nb-hOTdfc
Bean e. al Efpia DelanO e aLJudgmen for plaintiff
amount to be adjusted.
Lecis Le9yeH VS. Gilbert Hall and I'm. P0rter VS.. WR
BGrnpeH Judgment OF nonsuit.
John A. Miller VS.. CrotoH Insurance Co-Judgment for
psintf
John Oakley Stephen Hasbr0uek -Defendant entitled
10 his costs.
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT CoURT-Beiore Judge Mel
son ARdrao ThOrp It ais We. Cornelius w. laurence,
collector 70 recover a return of duties paid
der protest upon quantity of plush which charged
30 but which II is commended should have paid
but % per cent I'D vaorem. To be continued.
SUPREME CoURT-ln the case OF LiUiH9st0a vs.. Fin
kles being one of the Anti Rent causes from Columbia
County, the Court refused to grant trial. The
decision Ia in favor of the Livingston title.
The causes on the Calendar which were reserved
to be proceeded with u their regular order commencing
to-day. No default allowed sfer No. 100.