The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1849-05-05
United States Circuit Court.


MAY 4.-Gilbert T Ererson and others Cornelius
" Le,crence.-This was an action to recover about
tiffs in 1S47 imported article from England known
as lastings it formerly used clothing, but it
seems that lattery has not been used for that pur
pose but is mostly used for making buttons
and for boots and Shoes and bootees The defendant
insisted that it liable under the of 1912 and
1S46 to duty of 80 per cent and compelled the plain
tfs to that sum- the latter paid it under protest.
and seeks to recover it back, with interest con-
tending that the article in suit fell under the 18th sub
division of the 5th seotion of the act.
His Honor charged the jury, that it admitted on
clause of the tariff act Of is4s under which dntv Of
80 per cent is properly chargeable unless 1t be
brought under lower rate on account of some pecu
liar characteristic belonging to it. The following is the
clause of the act VIZ: the fifth subdivision of the first
section, "On all manufactures not otherwise specified
silk combined duty of 80 per cent is charged" 1t is
conceded this article is composed either of wool in
the whole, or wool and silk combined IT, there
fore, the stood on this clause Of the statute
it would be very clear that the duty charged in
this case was In pursuance Of the provisions of the
proofs they have given that the article fell under
different clause OF the statute namely: under the 18th
subdivision of the 9Th section, which is follows:-
Provided that hastings, prunela, &c. of SINH ia
brics not otherwise specified when imported in strips,
pieces &C., suitable for the manufacture of boots,
shoes and bootees" This is the clause under which it
is insisted that the article properly falls and if it
only question: therefore, IL whether the position taken
by plaintiff s counsel is correct not. appre-
bend, from the examination have given the case
that 1t does not mean that if the article in question
suitable for the manufacture exclusively of boots but
tons, &C., that it should be charged only with duty Of
five per centthat, think is not the meaning of the
clause; the contrary 1t to that the term
in which the clause is framed necessarily excludes this
Interpretation. There must be something more in the
case than the mere sutabeness Of the arce in other
words, in my apprehension, it that the article
must be suitable in size shape and form for the
elusive manufacture OF boots &c. and that that Is the
true meaning Of the clause. 1t therefore
to me that it is impossible to give effect to every
part of the clause without coming to this concla-
construction, 1
seems to obliterate the clause altogether. His
honor then referred the succeeding clause of the
statute which provides for the duty on mohair figured
satins, &c, which embraces every description of
worsted cloths and said they might be brought under
this clause provided it could be shown that they
articles suitable for covering buttons yet all these ar
Giles specifically charged with duty of twenty per
cent. After making remarks the Of the
article and the purposes for which 1t imported he
said the question not whether when the article was
imported il suitable for the manufacture of shoes
boots, &c. but whether it has been i'm ported in size
and shape suitable for the manufacture of those arti
per cent and plaintiff would be entitled to tho
amount he now claims, but if the state and condition
in which it has been imported does not bring it within
this clause then 1t comes within the 9Th subdivision
OF the first section and defendant is entitled
diet His Honor next referred to the tariff of lS45
and said that although there obscurity in the
phraseology of this act he inclined to ri it tho
same as he had given to the clause of tho
act of 1872 Sealed verdict to morrow (this) morning
After the jury had retired the District Judge his
seat on the Bench and the Court took up the equity
calendar.
This is hearing az pleadngs and proofs The plain
tin obtained patent in 1915, for the invention of
machine for combing wool and ginning cotton, &c Ho
afterwards assigned third of his interest in
the defendant citizen Of the State of New Jersey;
and again on the 9th of February 1876 agree
ment was entered into between them whereby amongst
other things the defendant eovenaned that he would
not in future sell any of the machines at less than 500
proht The complainant alleges that he violated this
agreement and the bill hcd for mi unct ton
restrain him from manufacturing and selling said
chimes and for an account of the sales, &c The
Is likely to occupy several days.