The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-07-03

maintain this action ca That the legal right Of pro-
perry in the apparatus vested in the United States
for the purchase money go That the apparatus being
the property of United imported for their
the sale Of il By the Collector for sscton Of such duty
was without warrant Of law, and void On the motion
for new trial because Of newly discovered evidence,
consisting Of letters to and from United states ocers
&C.. that facts disclosed which could rghtfuy
change the verdict a.d Judgment on the above points
injunction against Mr. Maxwell be dissolved. Opinion
by Judge Nelson
by defendants TO set aside verdict for plaintiff for
81 O20 60 fire policy The bill Of exceptions used IS
case on the motion The Court decided that plead
Dgs this were wrapt and confused that the real
points in condensation between the parties not pro-
perry brought before the jury and not in shape to
presented in the exceptions deciding matters of fact
without referring them to the jury; and that the
whole case the verdict be set aside and trial
dered with costs abide the event And the Court fur
ther ordered that the parties reform their peadings
that the merits of the be tried under the issues
Opinion by Judge Nelson.
The Boston Belang Co. ads. William Jidson Demurrer
to declaration This action commenced in State
court against the defendants foreign corporation and
by them removed to this court The complaint filed
in the State court brought up with the and
served by the attorney the plaintiff the attorney
the defendant in this court general and special de.
murrer put into it, The Court decided, G that the
peadngs OF the plaintiff here must conform to the rules
and practice OF this If this be prosecution on
the equity side of the court the complaint is insufficient
and bad in not being drawn conformaby to the rules Of
practice here 3 II IL be intended prosec cutting at
law, the complaint is bad in form substance de-
claraton A. Query-Whether this court has jurisdiction
in this case the defendants being substantial party and
corporation within another State? Judgment for the
demurant, with leave to the plaintiff to file bill in
equity, or declaration at law he may be advised
Opinion by Judge Nelson.
Thomas Thompson and others Hugh Mar,reH-ver-
dict for plaintiffs subject to the opinion of the Court
upon made. The plaintiffs entry of their i'm
portatons at the Custom House had appraisal OF them
by merchant appraisers 1t did not essentially vary
santa
raised the value above the invoice prices ten per
The Collector levied duties on the value
and also twenty per cent increased duties penalty
The plaintiff protested in writing against both demands.
The Court decided:-1. That the invoice and duty on
which the protest written to be taken making
part of the designation and spe 1cation of obi cotton
made by the professionals in the under the protest
sufficient in relation to the difference duties and penay
charged That the protest does not authorize the
plaintiffs to call question the regularity Of the apprase
ment or the authority of the Collector appraisers to
make That there is evidence before the Court
wing that the cotton goods and cotton shaws
were improperly subjected to duty thirty per cent adj
rdiorem. A. That these mportatons being by manu-
tactures and owners of the goods the plaintiffs
subject to penalty OF twenty per cent although the
invoice prices raised over ten per cent by two ap
praisers Judgment for the plaintiff for the amount of
penalty exacted and interest thereon and tor the defen
dant, on the other claims Written opinion by Judge
Belts.
Francis Durand and others, Cornelius " Lawr,ce-
The plaintiffs imported invoice Of Red Wines from the
cent upon the invoice prices The Collector imposed
duties on the additional valuation and also penalty Of
the plaintiffs were manufacturers of the wines but that
fact was not alleged in the peadings invoice entry
The argument chiefly directed to the question of the
authority Of the Appraisers to make the appraisement
and the regularity Of their proceedings the succncy
OF the numerous protests made in the The Court
decided J. That regarding the wines manufactures OF
the plaintiffs the defendant had authority by law to
impose penalty of 20 Per cent the difference valua-
tons @ That the Court was not empowered by the law
to decide the fact whether the apprasement invoice
represented the true value of wines in the foreign market
3D. That the protests do not specify any objection to the
appraisement that had relation to the time place of
expectation and not to time and place of manufacture
and that particular cannot be regarded by the Court
That the protests point to fact showing the additional
duty illegally imposed the plaintiffs are
not accordingly entitled to interpose that objection
the hearing judgment for the plaintiffs for the amount
Of the penalty and interest and for the defendants
other demands Opinion by Judge Belts.
Henry l. Pearson and Samuel Hopkins rs. Cornelius
". Ldurence.-The plaintiffs in the year 1S49. made
several importatons of iron from Liverpool England to
this port The details of the several mporatons, and
the proceedings Of the Custom HGuse stated in the
opinion of the Court The decisions in the two proceed
ing the character and effect of the protests
applied to this case except that the iron imported
by the plaintiffs obtained by purchase in England
The appraisers valuation exceeded 10 per cent the
invoice price The Court decided that the Collector
justified in imposing the additional duty and penalty
complained Of novel feature in the that the
iron sold by the plaintiffs and the order accepted and
booked by the shippers several weeks before the iron
manpaciu red The plaintiffs proved that such order and
acceptance fixed the prices of the articles Of that time
and constituted a complete purchase such, bet ween
vendeI and vender and claimed that the appraisenent
should take that time the time of purchase The prices
advanced greatly between those dates and the time Of
shipment The invoices made up and dated at
about the time Of shipment at the agreed prices the
purchase. There was no evidence Of any variation of
prices between the time Of the delivery the iron date
Of invoices and the shipment The Court dcci5ed-1
That the term purchase used in the tam and
laws relation to goods wares and merchandise in es
and did not apply to contracts Of purcha e, by
which the importer acquired only right to the commo
dty and not the thing itself That the Collector pro-
perry rated the duties and the value of the iron at the
place of expectation when shipped and invoced. Judg
men for defendant on all the points Opinion by Judge
Belts.
The Same Hugh Mqa,reH.-The same general facts
in this in relation to different importatons and the
points of law raised and discussed except such
riations contained in the opinion Judgment for
the defendant on all the points Opinion by Judge Belts
julius Foske and Francis Boah Cornelius ". Laic-
This also the invoices of iron and
rested upon similar facts and points of law with the two
preceding The differences far they af-
feet the rights of the parties noted in the opinion
Judgment FOR the defendant, all the points Opinion
by Judge Belts. 70
Illus ". Laurence.-Ths also the importa-
ton ofron resembling in general features the three
cednp cases and involving substantially like questions
oflaw. The distinctions between them noted in the
opinion Judgment for the defendant on all the points
| Opinion by Judge Belts.
Daniel ". JtiLson, George T. Cobb and UMiam ID
B,uen, Cornelius W. Lacrenoe-This another
of importation Of iron of various descriptions. and in
volved trial substantially the same questions decided
inthe antecedent causes The distinction between
IL and the others is noted IN the opinion Judgment for
the defendant all the questions Opinion by Judge
Belts.
Phlos r. Taylor and William j Pendleton rs. Edpard
r. HYDE, Thomas u Stilaan Hmatio Allen and George
.aHe-1be defendants heretofore pleaded special plea
puts dGTYioge ooHtifuancsto the declaration in this
cause The plaintiffs demurred to that plea At helast
term this court rendered Judgment against the defen-
dane the demurrer with leave to them to plead
on the usual terms See opinion in that case The de-
PENDANTS have fled another special plea under that per-
mission and the plaintiffs notice moved the court to
set II aside irregular and void the allegation that
il is in substance the plea adJudged bad By the
court on demurrer: The court denied the motion to
strike out the plea holding that motion the proper
method Of raising the objection to the suciency of the
plea. They also decided that the defendants not
restricted by the last judgment to any particular form
discipline Of plea and would plead at their discretion at
the peru Of all legal exceptions to its sucency Motion
denied. Opinion by Judge Belts.
Moritz Lo'reRsen and Carl Loiuensiein Hugh Mar
H1he plaintiffs shipped $50 bags ofrsgs from Trieste
for this port The goods Bvoced at Vienna April
g. 1919 at the valuation at Agram The invoice, with
charges footed at Trieste 7169 forms 1t made
out in the specie valuation Of the place. which Is
cents U S. Treasury The invoice raised by the pub