The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1849-05-03
United States Circuit Court.


MAY 2.-E,nesf Fielder Edcard Curtis.-This
cause was taken up Several defences were set up,
but the Court overruled all, except one, namely,
whether there was any distinction known in com
merce between Russian hemp and Manila and Indian
hemp, which was the only question submitted to the
jury. he jury found verdict for the plaintiff for
81 AIS g. Leave wa. given to make up bill Of excep
tons.
CoggiH e. Co. rs. Cornelius ". Laurence This is an
action against defendant Collector of this port
back 81 22o paid by plaintiffs under protest
duty certain articles imported by them from Liver
at various times large quantity of sheep skins, with
the wool on from Liverpool, which had been Imported
from Buenos Ayresto Liverpool The Collector treated
them manufactured wool, and charged $50 per
cect ad valorcm the duty to which this article is sub
jec under the tariff law of 1s46 and also per cent
the skin pelt The plaintiffs claim that the articles
in question are known in trade and commerce
hides or skins and only subject to duty OF per cent
ad val The defence was that upon fair const rue ion
Of all the tariff down 1916 article question
should be considered manufactured wool and
liable to the duty charged. The court charged the
jury in substance follows He said that charge Of
30 per cent made the article, which paid by
the plaintiffs to government, under protest insisting
lied by the tariff act of 1886 and that duty of por
cent only should have been charged Tho present
ton brought for the purpose OF recovering the
the amount of which together with interest is 81 333
12-lC0 and which he will be entitled to recover pro-
yided you concur in tho views taken by his sel.
bo principal question in the IL what desKna lion
ought to be given to the article upon VIII oh
hss 10 charged; by what name is it known in
and commerce. for after those IT, there
will lie then difficulty to ascertain the rate Of duty
properly charycable upon IT. therefore, the prime
question will be to determine the name by which the
article IL known amongst those persons deal in IL.
On the part If the government 1t Is insisted that IL Is
known, and should be regarded by the court aud
jury IA manufactured wool, aud such, is charg.
able with duty Of thirty per cent which, in this
sisnce The law has cXacted. and moe Therefore,
the ground taken 10y the government counsel that
the chief value az the article is the value Of the
the skin upon which the wool IL according the tes
tInony not being worth more than three four cents
whist the wool Is worth from fourteen cents thirty
cents II is therefore insisted that the chief value lies
III the wool and Is alone regarded by the tarI and
charge able with this high duty If thirty per cent
On The part OF the plaintiff it is claimed that the arti-
Gle il well known in trade and commerce. and ha.
fixed name and one which is altogether irrec oncab BILE
with The claim set up by the government that II Is
khtwn under the name oi sheepskins and certainly
AL the witnesses concur in eayIng IL IT, known by
ihat dCs SuHtOn, and that the duty l. chaT'-
able under the taTiif act within that designation
appears. however. frhm reference the turIf acts
Il 1873, 1892 and 1884,. that under those taree -acs
hih article specifically charged with this duty in
Tie following words" Provided also that wool i'm.
puit d on skins should be valued by weight. Sc ~
biil ging II within the tari act, as claimed by tho
un5el representing the government In this cause
hut that clause has been omitted altogether In the aot
Of lt3G probably by oversight In looking the
net Of 1876 there Is difficulty in arriving the
particular clause within winch to bring tins article
should therefore think, II this omission had been
made Intentionally. some other clause wound have
been inserted to bring this article under tho tar'h
law. pom the evidence In tho cause IL seems that
III, arnl has alwbys b zen known by u designation
that would exclude IL from being dcnominat1d I'M
manufactured wool The question then II, under
whit clause Of the act Of 1915 IT falls and mat per-
hate, Is the onIy question for you TO consider HIS
~ u, u en- e, He'd the attention. ytu Schedule
and The thicu tiODs OF III, act OF 'ois
tb, M to ny under which Of these two CLASSES 10
TO fall Scaled verdict Tomorrow (ths) morning