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

would sey that Of ths allegations forth II
rscy the manufacture Of the soods COS. us no moro
that not s >.
cost" Hence the govsrnmsnt fell into the sams-
sa,s I. could y
cal instruments Custom House the appraisers
ssS Invoice ssn s This they =.
Aesms Alexandra entitled to presume that thsi
invoice came within the requirements Of avs after
shipments organs but when the third arrives under
precisely similar circumstancei, and invoicsd ct the
gentlemen BY selling their wares and suIjseng them
TO Al expensive course Of law And what has been the
We 81 sha !. 81 sSs cost q
manufacture and . consequent distraction Of trade
with Americas for American dealers being let into the
secret Of The cheapness at which musical instruments
could be produced by the Mesers Alexandra, forthwith
made purchases at mere tras above cost The goods
ought never to have been seized for another reason
in compliance with the spirit of the eighth section Of
the tariff act Of 1885, which authorizes the consgnee
agent to make such addition in the entry to the cost
value given the invoice, to raise the to the
true mariet value abroad, we shall show in evidence
that before the Of this suit An OFFER in
appraissment, however unjust, and pay the duties
thereon. You, gentlemen Of the jury, can judge for
shall also show that the printed circular catalogue
issued by Aesrs Alexandra according TO the custom OF
officers in settling the spprslsemsnt ia NO crterou
whatever Of price or value but states wholly fictitious
values that the organs there rated ct could
be- and actually have beer purchased for 4s5 francs,
and the other qualities at proportona.e deductions
that the discounts allowed by that house reach high
sixty per cent; that such pa sctice Of nominal
price current was officially known to the govern
ment, through their Consul at Paris and dsisgarded
by the appraisng officer and also that such msrchan.
disc has market value, owing TO the extremely linn.
tied demand, but is sold for what It win bring Now
reeort to few figures will in moment tell precisely
how stand The invoice is fxed 1T $50 francs Tbs
articles set forth In the printed catalogue at
1900 francs. deduction Of sixty per cent would re.
duce the same to selling price, which would form the
standard, II you please market value and thus the
amount would be Gao francs, difference Of only 90
francsor less than 80 dollars, beyond the invoice.
Conseq uenty the matter is resolved into trifng
difference, which the Court has already decided win
not be sufficient to authorize the jury in nferrng frau
Is emipently proper gentle men Of the jury, that
you should not lose sight OF the fact that although
you have the power Of rendering averdict in our
favor, yet, owing to the inequality Of rights which
exists between individuals and the government the
former, matter how successful must always the
losers and that Messrs. Alexandra WILL nevertheless,
in order TO prove their innocence Be subj to
penses about equal to the value Of the invoice Several
witnesses examined behalf OF the claimants.
and upon the summing up Of Mr.. Kursheedt and Mr..
Joachimsfen, and hecharge Of His Honor the Judge,
the was submitted to the jury. Having come
twice into Court for Instructions unable to agree upon
verdict, the Court directed them to bring in . sealed
verdict March 21.-Verdict for the government.
CHARGE OF COMMUNICATING.
The trial OF Edward Brown, called Doctor Brown,
charged with counterfetng, next brought This
tried before and fully reported the jury
on that occasion did not agree. It Is stfn on.