The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-03-23
alleged Smuggling ON Beard the Hermann.
DECISIONS IN ADMIRALTY UNITED srArxs prsrKfOr

AHsBou DuBBn8 ON board the Hermann.
DECISIONS In ADnIRALrY-UNITED STATES DISTRICT
10 sa4 ~ COURT. al p t.t4
ifts Before Hon. Judge Hall
MARcH 2.-7Ae United States ps One Case Oontasning
Wooilon Cloths Lidore Slrrstein Olaimamt Tins was
proceeding on the part Of the United States forfeit
the goods on the ground that they had been concealed
on board the steamship Hermann, and that the duties
mad not been paid Evidence given by the prosecu
ton that on the I'd October 1854 ths case stopped
at the gargway the Custom House Inspector three
men were taken It ashore who said that the OF
It was on the dock. It marked s'passengers' bag
gage but had no mark OF having been inspected That
the case sent TO the public store and while there
the claimant, with others, there to about it,
and said 1t contained old Clothes books &c. That
the request Of the officer the claimant at unlocked
n, and examination It found TO contain also rs
pieces OF woollsa cloths, which were valued ut so97
There also remnants of cloth, and the claimant
alleged that he tailor, and had brought this
over among bis other baggage but denied any conceal
ment. sHN s.p ~ %
BY the Court-e attorney of the United States seeks
to procure condemnation of the property bellsd In
this forfeited to the government under pro-
visions OF the 65th section OF the Of March 1892
the ground that such property had been
on board the steamer Hermann, contrary to the pro-
Tho term ssoenceaIed" al used in that section. an
plies only 10 ARTICLES intended to be sscreted and With
drawn from public view on account Of the dues not
having been paid or secured to be paid, az whsston
1851 and an 81 opinion that the charge OF conceal
ment has not been proved in the present case.
There was certainly attempt made to take the box
containing the articles hbeed ashore, without per-
init or the Of duties; but the claimant by tho
evidence produced In hs behalf has rebutted
Enc presumption that such attempt made by his d.
rections consent and has shown quite concusvely
that he absent from the ship for some con
time before and until the next day after the attempt
made. + l -eaatsl.
Under such circumstances think the burden Of prov
articles ibeled in the employ, acted by the d
xection consent Of the claimant Is upon the
United States, especially the officers OF the customs
the engaged in the attempt and also the
carman, who II alleged by such persons had been
employed by the Of the goods TO transport the
boz from the wharf, and by whom II stated that the
person employing him had just left when the officers
went to the cart to find the Neither this cart
man. nor either Of the three persons who attempted to
move the box, has been produced the part OF the
United States for the purpose Of identifying the claimant
and owner and even II the attempt to remove the box
from the ship without its being arst examined by the
officers Of tbs customs, and without tho payment OF
per under the provisions OF the act before referred
(Which am inclined TO doubt there Ia proof that
the attempt made with the Of
the owner of thu goods OF any having any interest
Ia, or right OF, control over them.
The statements made or intended to be made by the
the officers to have the examined next day after
this attempt, were probably msapprehended BY the
Oicers In consequence Of the In which the
terpreter the word cloths which he being
German, pronounced almost exactly like Americans
pronunciation OF the word clothss Certainly, there
nor was packed arranged In the TO show
any intentioa Of concealmsnt F4a4.s La. t..s1.1.
The hbol must Therefore be dismissed but there must
DE certificate OF probable cause.