The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-03-23

FALSE INVOICES OF MUsrcAL INSTRUMENTS.
MARCH 2o-7he United States rs Eight Musical Instru-
ment-This action brought in 1852 for the for
fixture Of certain musical instruments organs sent to
this port from Paris upon the ground Of naturalization,
with intent to defraud the revenue. Mr. JoAehimssen
appeared for the United States, and Mr.. Alexander
Kurshesdt and Mr.. James Rdgwsy for the claimants.
The facts may mostly be gathered from sketch Of the
opening OF the defence The prosecuting officer having
opened his case and produced sufficient testimony TO
throw the burden OF proof upon the claimants, Mr..
Ridgway, In opening the for the claimants, said
The facts really SO few, plain and simple there win
Before proceeding TO give outline Of the evidence
intend 10 offer, IL In Just that should call
sered By hi. i Homer, Judge Belts, In case
similar to this recently tried before him, forming
part Of the Instructions which ID win BE- proper for yoar
the charge his Honor in the Of sandsrsons forks
and grindstones in reference 70 the mslness Of differ
dence sf fraud, &C. The princpls then, is an est.b
nshsi one that to convict the ju,y must sss the IN
goods in ct low price, and, also that II dif-
TO infer fraud. Now. the facts Of the
fac.ursfs Of nusicai Instruments doing large bust
At Paris sent the organs In question TO this port
in the ship Costello, IN the fan Of 1852 consigned 70
were invsiced at 2,s6o francs, which, shall pre-
senty prove 10 your entire satisfaction, cost them that
and not having been sold, but here
for SALE, their agents paid the duties aud
charges, which increased the cost In New York 10
1890 francs They had sent two other consgnments TO
the United States In the way The first by ship
william Tell, in March, 1852, Of nine organs nvoeed
at sci francs upou which charges were ncarsd here.
swelling the cost to 1900 francs. Those goods only
brought 400 fraucs that Mers Alexandra lost 500
francs. The second shipment Of two instruments by the
vaucluse in August OF the year, invoiced At
700 francsthe charges increasing that amount TO 900
francs Those two sold for ,3o2 leaving pront to the
manufacturers Of 362 francs. In this second impor.
aton you perceive the chances Of trade and transpor
tation In their favor instead Of against them as
In the hrst shipment. VIII be that throughout
the whols Of their transactions with the United States
they vent upon the assumption that manufacturers
entitled 70 invoice their goods ct actual cost,
and they had good for believing go; for, In two
instances prior TO this they had adopted tina.
sumption sad we're given 70 understand that IL
rect BY the fact Of the New YORK. Custom House autho
rites examining the goods and passing the invoices I'M
Questioned They received their Information all pro-
babity from some OF earlier laws aud we're thus
inpoeenty led into the Of supposng essential
change had been made Under the revenue laws passed
prior 70 1929 the Of merchandise beet
id valoren duties basel upon It's actual cost in
labor and materias,n and not on its actual market
value The counsel then cited several acts Of Congress
aAd decsions OF varona courts bearing upon this point
and then eontinued-And while upon this sub. sct