The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1848-11-11

fendant as collector to recover 81 81 So of du
ties paid under protest on certain %portasIs OF
paid at the rate of thirty cent ad vaorem ac
cordiug to the following provision of schedule of the
articles OF leather or Of which leather shall be
ponent part, not otherwise provided for" 1t is con-
tended the part of the plaintiff that the article in
question is provided for In schedule E. at twenty
cent duty Leather, upper, of all kinds' that the
article in question Is upper feathers 30 called com
merce and used the upper feathers Of boots
shoes This leather. as we'll as upper leather Of all
kinds. may be, and sometimes Is, used for harness
and other purposes than boots and shoes but it is,
He therefore insists that, under schedule f. the art
Gle in question is only properly chargeabe with twenty
per cent duty For the defence IL was relied on that
schedule Of the statute and that 1t had been legally
and commercially known as patent or manufactured
leather and therefore embraced In schedule G. The
District Attorney went on to contend that the
language and intent of the act should control this
question and not tho arbitrary designations and dis
The court charged the jury, that It ruled by
eminent that the duty to be charged under the act
was 80 cent the part of the plaintiff it was con-
tended that the article only chargeabe with 20
cent the whole question depended upon the nstruc
ton be given to schedule c, which is this msuuac
lures of leather articles of which leather shall
eompon part, and not otherwise provided for the
question IT, whether the article in question is to be
properly understood in the of this law article
of manufactured leather it insisted the part of
the government that this manufacture of leather;
thoes and boots manufactured out Of leather rs
well various other artices and as understand this
law the duty charged upon articles Of this pton
IL 80 per cent the act embraces all those articles,
unless otherw provided for the question is whether
this particular article is manufactured out Of leather
then it is the duty is properly charged, aud
is not entitled to recover the District Attorney In
fists that this construction Is consistent with the
terms used in the several revenue acts and amongst
others, the act Of 1912 where those terms used
in relation to those articles the wing is the clause
leather " this the pSra.soo S Of the act of s4
and 1t must be necessarily understood, that patent
leather must be understood manufactured lea
ther, because it is used With other kindred
ticlss, to wit manufactured leather; and am,
therefore. inclined to the opinion that this is
the meaning of the legislature and the true constru,
tion of the act Still the question in this case, de-
ponds upon the construction of the act of 1s46; but
this construction mu depend upon It's phrase
ol'gy In connection with the evidence of dealers in
the article, who have been called to give the in
which this particular article is known in trade and
commerce. Now 1t appears from the evidence that
the article is known in trade by various names by
the name fpatent by the name Of vanished leather
and by the name of glazed calf skins, but &c
rally by the name of patent leather but this does
to the clause Of this act There must be something
more it must be manufactured leather, to bring it
within the provisions Of the act The counsel have
branch ofthe case, to wit whether it is known in
trade as manufactured leather II it is it has been
properly charged with the duty ef3O per cent It ap
pears to that it is Particularly alluded to ia
two other clauses of the act and am in.
clned to think that under those provisions 1t is only
causes these clauses speak leather they also
speak upper leather of all kinds it is insisted
literally they embrace all leather that are used for he
upper part OF boots and shoes but commercially they
may not CO me under this designation There is ano-
Their provision directly bearing this case
it is ths-skins tanned and dressed of all kinds not
otherwise provided for 1t Is insisted by plaintiffs
not that 1t 10 skin Of some kind, which brings it
within the broader Of the act but If 1t is charge
able with this 80 per cent 1t comes within the clause
lol rn~ hvv lal,v~
you to determine, the evidence, whether it is IN
article Of patent or manufactured leather. II you
jury withdrew. and after short time returned with
sverdict for plaintiff for the amount claimed.
UsIrEp STATES CIncvIr CouRr, Nov. 1o-Before
Judge Nelson-In admiralty The schooner Mary
pelee-This libel in rem for the delivery of
goods, shipped from Philadelphia to New York Tbs
had been r en- credit and R Ss Sy
nary FORM by the master, for the delivery Of me So ne
to the consignee or his order The bill Of lading ws
transmitted to New York previous to the arrival Of the
vessel and endorsed to the 5eans to secure on ad-
vance Of $1,000 cash. After the arrival Of the vessel
the delivery Of the goods was demanded Of tho
The day the vessel arrived and before the de.
mand. the goods were reple ut the suit Of the
vendor, on writ against the vendee. upon allie
cation that the latter had become insolvent and also
bad agreed to pay for the goods on their delivery at
New York. The court held that the appellee was to
be regarded in the light of bona fde purchaser aud
suted NO bar to his right to the delivery Of the goods
by the master that the lmsser and ship
ponsble irrespective OF the suit between other parties
Decree below affirmed.
George Balchen and William Smidt Is. The Ship
Eli Whifney.-This was libel in by the char
terers founded upon alleged breach of the charter
party In this that the masters had refused receive
On board for the voyage, (Which was from New York
to Brmen) the full amount Of cargo that he had
stipulated to carry according to the terms of the
charter party The court held that the charter party
contained stpulations to the precise amount Of
admissible to enlarge or vary its terms; that pro-
ceeding IN not maintainabe for misrepresen-
tations conceament of facts in respect the ton
mage or capacity OF the vessel by the MASTER
ers, leading to charter party; and that If l. could
be- none were proved. Decree affirmed.
The Ship .ateytoiie. Us. Peter Nc Donald aud Others
This was libel in rem for not furnishing the peaut
and bis family with provisions and water their
passage from Liverpool to New York agreeaby to the
the ship The court held that ships carrying passen-
gers for hire stand on the same footing of responsible
hty as those carrying merchandise, the passage mo.
pey being the equivalent for the freight and that for
breach OF the contract with the passenger respect
to his passage. and damage resulting thercrom, the
ship as we'll as the owner, was responsible That the
principles making the ship liable for breach Of the
contract of freghtment Of erchandizs, she should
be also held liable for breach of the passengers
contract. Decree affirmed.
Alfred Moron and Others rs.the Steamboat CoIumba
This was libel for collision between the canal boat
Fl. Waving, and the steamboat Columbia which oc-
CURED on the North River, below Catskill, on the
night Of the 18th of Nov, 1S47. The canal boat
in tow by the tug Sandusky. The court held that,
upon the evidence, there any fault It lay with
the Sandusky che being with her tow too FAR towards
the east shore In the channel of the riverher proper
course being along the west shore that thu
to be Of misfortune rather than Of fault by
either vessel Decree affirmed
John Davenport rs The Brig Sea F2ower.-This wal
libel in to the sum of 1881 45, moneys
advanced for repairs and other necesaes for the
Sea Flower, in the Island OF Bermuda The vesse had
been wrecked and abandoned to the underwriters who
sent agent to the island with authority to pay the
salvage repair the vessel and bring her to York;
and for the purpose of raising the necessary
gave him letter of credit upon the appellant, autho
rizing him to draw them for the amount at thirty
days sight. The above advanced Accord ngly
and a draft drawn and accepted. On the arrival Of
the vessel at this port, the underwriters negotiated
sale and delivery of her to the insured in satsfac
Of their policy, and soon afterwards failed In bust
The court held that exclusive credit given to tbs
urderwriers Tor the advance, and that lien existed
upon the vessel for repayment of the same, aud espe-
ciay that the lien would not be set up the cir
cumstances againet the title of bona fde purchaser
Decree affirmed