New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1867-01-10
CTTIL COURTS.
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COCRT-JAN a-Beiore
Judge SMNLLEY.
IMPORTANT VERDICT TOR TIE GBNTENhfENI-A NIL
LION or DOLLARS INVOLVED.
q l. srllD.LI.r 4 ID I'll Hmm LINN.

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT CoURr-JAN. a-Beiofe
Judge sNtLLEY.
IMPORTANT VERDICT TOR TIE GOVIRNMENT-A NIL
lI2S s,S 0S P21i +, Rs I il,9 hil.;
This was action brought against the defendant
duties alleged 10 have been Illegally cHactod
by the latter while Collector Of this port on AN mpori"
ton Of wOysteds from saNoy The whole case turned on
the construction OF law under hc acts OF % and l2 and
the facts as 10 The understanding f trade hs applied 10
the commercial dc-i .uatiou Of the article.
The statute under which the contest arose read as FOL
Targao rMor-t 1901 There shan 20 levied ~ l.'r.'
cashmere dn muslin tlalss barge si.. composed wholly ~
goods Of similar dr ptop . PEI cert 81 rsor,m Ga farf
ssaIbe CONF oaelt MATERIAL ao, Otherwise provided foo
e Taiif net Of July H. 1907 directs that IN addition 20
tho above duties there slaii De levied
o. az a.,i., 'a,l. . E - l- ~ ~ '.'
saa, yard cr - Pc, sre ysr On buria vor.i,i m al on
an Other r. Of aori NJ 81 Which uoI.iei sdl Be- CON.
roue mltl. olsra. provided 1T PEP cent 90 ,ao'
The goods In question were imported nom saAouy Ger
manufactured Of wor-tcd, rot Otherwise provided Tor,
and should pay percent al NoIen IN addition 10 80
The Government contcndcd ,iat The good, In question
cent ad yuOTcu; levied on auCd, cuurcd printed
goods" under act O Gi slst this charge the plaintiff
protected, ana inns sun was Drought
The two main questions IN tr case was construction
OF statute and a question ot trade On the statute, the
plaintiffs cOncuded That TWO cents per square yard undcr
the act on 1892 limited To- gray on uncOlOrcd goods
Ia tho act Of 1904 The Government commended That the
act OF lst2 enlarged The scope 81 the i subdivision Of
the act OF 1861 and wus moi meant incudc printed and
20
goods, under the Term "dclaines and mat with THIS con
struc0n Of statute 30 question Ia fact whether Tho
goods I'm question were Of similar description 10 gray
uncOOrcd' delaincs ana also similar 60 "pIluicd,
co0rcd stained" dcaines: I'm short were they similar
to dclanes OF aii kind, In any scnse.
on the construction Of The sairic The Court hold sub
stautally, that without expressing au opinion 30 would,
the jury 10 lind az question OF fact, what the intent Of
Congress i these acts that IT, whether they believed
goods, mentioned IN the second subdivision Of the act ~
1861, taken oil OF this subdivision and was included
fftaf fr1 dis Of
intent Of Congress that the addition Of two cents per
square yard should DO limited 10 gray or mcoorcd"
act OF 1907 ana the Court on this so charged the jury ana
gave 10 them The two statutes.
As to the question Of trade, 20 whether tho goods in
issue similar 10 dclancs, 10 proved That the
only difference between dcaincs and the importatios
that dclanc b. woven I'm the plain cloth and then
printed, while the goods In question dyed in The
yarn and then woven IN cooIs The material was the
same, the OF both tine samc and excepting the
application Of the cOlorng matter tine Manufacture Of
The two were The same The G0Fencnt commended that
this being the only difference between the two
similar to TIE other The plaintiffs on the contrary
commended mat ms was radical diherence, and IN
trade the two articles not understood TO be similar
On this issue tho plaintiffs examined some Is witnesses
the lcadlng merchants Of NeWfoik, Mcssrs A. T. Stew
art, II. H. Clafn, Justin A. Bliss, some OF the firm of
Chittcndcn Coz and Of laihrOp, LudngtOn e. Co., aud
others all Of whom agreed that, IN their respective 0pin
Ol tAc arc IN question were not known as being or
The Government, on the contrary, examined some Of
The leading merchants ~ Boston the agents OF the urn
Boston, Providence, the Lowell Mills the Lawrence Mills
Manchester and apparently the whole territory of the
give light on this subject, ia opposition TO the NewYork
j0bbcrs and importers who were rule equally with
the plaintiffs interested In the result of the suit The
D5tllctAttOmcy, Nj Courtney and his Assistant, Mr..
Ethan Allen, apparently determined, in suit OF such
magnitude 10 loss single point, and was left
mtmncd The United States called some I6 or 20 wit.
nosscs as above stated who all agreed that the articles
IN question were known IN trade being "Of similar
description 10 doaincs" The most desperately
fought Oh both sides because OF the amOund involved In
The principle 10 be settled by the verdict, estimated be
al least $OOOOO IL may be safely said that Il * the
most important OF the kind tried In this Circuit
and il the fist verdict obtained for the Government
in trial OF this class, when the amount was very i'm
pOTtant.
The trial Of the cause was commenced before Judoe
Smaley on the Goth day OF December last and has con
tnued without interruption excepting SUNDAYS and hol
days, till yesterday, the third week Of the trial.
Mr. Ethan Allen, Assistant United ates District Attor-
ney, examined and examined the Witnesses and
opened the TO the jury the part OF the Govern
ment Mr. Courtney, the United States District
summing up the same. Mr.. Courtney commenced sum
ming up on Monday morning last and the evidence being
necessarily very VOmiuOus he occupied all day Monday
and part Of Tuesday. Mr. GrswOd occupied about three
hours In summing up for plaintiff on Tuesday. This
morning the Judge charged the jury and they
about half All hour when they returned verdict for the
Government
The Hon. Samuel G.. Courtney and Ethan Allen Assist
ant United States District oncy, for the
AlmOn w. Griswod, esq, for the plaintiff
UNITED STATES COMMISSIONERS OFFICE-JAs
9.-BcfOre Commissioner OSBORN
ALLEGED CRUEL AND INIIUMAN TREATMENT OF A
SEAMAN.
United States agt Julius Caulkins
The examination in this ease. the facts of which
were reported iu TUESDAYS TKBNE proceeded with