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

alleged Smuggling ON Board the Hermann.
p&cIsiohs In ADhIRAITY-UsITED STATES DISTRICT
.As .a4 ~ s#0 COURT. g-.s 81 81 .r.g
itrt Before Hon. Judge Hall.
MARCH H.-4he United States vs. One Case Cbntaining
WooIlon Cloths, Lidore Silrersen CIainamt Tins was
proceeding the part Of the United States forfeit
tho goods on the ground that they had been concealed
on board the steamship Hermann and that the duties
had not been paid Evidence given by the prosscu
zion that on the I'd October 1854 the stopped
At tho gangway by the Custom House Inspector three
men were taken 1t ashore, who said that the Of
II was on the dock. II marked spassengers bag.
gage" but had mark Of having been inspected. That
The case was sent TO the public store and while there
the claimant with Others there to about it,
and said II contained old Clothes books &c. That as
the request Of the Officer the claimant unlocked
II, and examination It found TO contain also rs
pieces OF w0olen cloths which were valued at so97
There also remnants Of cloth, and the clsma mt
alleged that he tailor and had brought this
over among his other baggage, but denied any conceal
BY the CourtThe attorney of the United States seeks
to procurea condemnation OF the property Mbellsd in
visions 65th section OF the of March 1799
upon the ground that such property had been
on board the steamer Hermann, contrary to the pro-
The term Concealed" a; used in that section, ap-
plies only 70 srtces 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 Wheaton
1857 sndI sthe 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 libelled ashore, without per-
t or tbs payment Of duties but the claimant by the
evidence produced In his behalf has sufficiently rebutted
Ehe presumption that such attempt made by his d.
rectons consent and has shown quite conclusivey
that he absent from the ship for siderable
time before and until the next day after the attempt
made. l Ttan
Under such circumstances think the burden Of prov
ing that the persons engaged In the effort to the
articles iibeod In the employ acted by the d.
gecton OF consent Of the claimant upon the
United States, especially the officers OF the customs
saw the engaged the attempt and also the
carman, who, was alleged BY such persons, had been
employed BY the Of the goods TO transport the
box from the wharf, and by whom stated that the
perso0 employing him had just left when the officers
went to the cart to find the Neither this cart
sn nor either OF the three persons who attempted to
United States for the purpose Of identifying the claimant
and owner and even II the attempt to the box
from the ship without Its being frst examined by the
officers Of tbs customs, and without the payment Of
duties thereon, would be t'concealment" Of the pro
gey under the provisions OF the act before referred
fhe attempt made with the owledge consent Of
the Of thu goods OF any having any interest
In, or right Of, control over them.
Tbs statements made or intended to be made by the
claimant through his interpreter, when be applied to
the officers to have the examined the day after
this attempt, were probably msapprehended BY the
Ocers In consequence Of the In which the In
terpreer pronounced the word cloths which he being
German, pronounced almost exactly like American 9
pronunciation OF the word clothss Certainly, there
was NO conceanent Of the property upon that occasion
nor was 70 packed arranged In the TO show
any intention Of concealms0t. t1.sf as1sa
The hbol must therefore be dismissed, but there must
DC certihcste OF probable cause.