New-York tribune., 1867-03-29
CIVIL COUR7a
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT-MARcHs s.-Befar.
Judge SHALLEY
THE LOTTERY BUSINESS.

Judge sNALLEY D'''''
THE LOTTERY BUSINESS.
The Supreme Court of the United Statf5 bayipa
decided that lottery and policy dealers who do business 6
states where lotteries are prohibited can be taxed and
they cam complied with tho provisions Of the law Ia
relation to the manner Of paying the tax end tendens
Internal Revenue and the collector having refused re.
cognze their bOndsmen OF to receive their tender OF the
amount Of their tax these parties, by counsel applied 10
the court for mandams to compel the collector TO
recognize their bondsmen receive Their and for an in,
Interfering with them while transacting their business
tax In coDforty with the provisions of the law and the
regulations Of the Secretary OF the Treasury
The court declined hearing argument, and said the
matter had better be postponed for week. when Judge
shippan would Sit he Judge smaey1 being unable te
give the matter the attention 1t required and he would
advise that. in the meantime, tho DstrictAttorney
refrain from prosecuting and the United States COnms
soners refrain from issuing warrants for the Of
parties alleged to have violated the law but who have
rendered the tax ana presented DOhdsnen In the aanef
claimed TO have been done by the applicants fox the
OPINIONS BY JUDGE sNALLEY-CAN IMPORTED GOODS
BE CoNFIsCATED AFTER THE EXACTIoN OF The
PENALTY FOR UNDERYALUATIoNf
Ernest Grief ct al agt Simeon Draper
Plaintiffs imported. by steamer Glasgow, from
two other similar cases, by steamer CITY OF CorE from me
same city Upon % @ Dy s was
at more than 10 per cent above It's inyolced value Ihs
former value was sustained Collector Draper thereupon
seized the merchandise, and claimed IT'S Iofelturc ~
had paid the penalty exaced for undegvauation for the
purpose of obtaining their MERCHANDISE. Plaintiffs
theieupon brought suit to recover the merchandise.
Judge smaley decides that this suit Is prematurey
brought and for that reason gives Judgment ior deeho
In this case of dreff at Draper you may enter
judgnep: for the defendant upon the ground tht tns
admits the fact that this penalty properly collected
that II properly exacted and properly PAID yer ns
asmuch as the Government have subsequently 10 thas
time attempted to cOnfiscatc the property by hbehgn
in the District Court the plaintiff has Alright to recover
Government can hold both the property and the penalty
though question not necessarily arise here This
exaeted and rghtiuly paid If there is defense any
thing it to the suit Tor conh'caon OF the property
Webster Craig for plaintiffs United states District
Attorney s. g. Courtney and Assistant United states Dh
trct-Attorney Ethan Allen, for defendant.
TEE ssIIDII.[ DTTIS 8 on SS, ghASPY mirsS Barney
This suit was brought against the defendant to 70
cover sel SO upon importation OF gD imported by the
January 1883 and also 1924 25, upon Inpo
tat0n OF brandy imported by the same parties from Il
alleged that the above amounts respectively levied
by the defendant Collector Of the Port in excess oi
The issue between the plaintiffs and the defendant
follows
August O. 1851 section at the close thereof eyies the
following duty:
And defendant further claimed that the tariff act OF
July IA, 1862 reads as follows; ,,.,.
Section g. And bo it further enacted, that In addition
TO the duties heretofore imposed by law, the articles
hereinafter mentioned and included m ts section thera
duty. that is TO say:
"On brandy, for first proof 25 cents per gallon.
provided That lower rate amount OF duty shan
be levied collected, and paid brandy spirits, ara al
other DuOus beverages than that fixed by law for the
description OF proof but shall be increased in pro-
portion for greater strength than the strength OF
first proof" ,, A.,
The argument and the statutes being precisely the
same in regard the gin imported by the plaintiffs ex'
cepting only difference iii the amount OF the cDrgee
the question therefore fully disposed OF by conins
the arguments and facts to the brandy.
After argument by counsel verdict was entered, by
order the Court for plaintiffs subject to the opinion Of
the Court on the law.
Tho following Is Judge smalley's opinion:
'Haying fully considered the questions OF law In the
above cause reserved for consideration OF the Court az
trial the and the briefs OF counsel submitted
therein, am Of opinion that, under the act OF Aug
1861 all brandy OF whatever degree OF strength Is liable
TO the fixed duty Of 81 Is gallon and all spirits to the
fixed duty cents per gallon and that under the act
July 1862 addition is 10 De made TO those rates OF "a
cents per gallon brandy of fTstproOf, and onehaf
cent additional for every degree above stproof and 20
cents per gallon for every gallon OF spirits Of first proof
and one additional for every degree above first
proof. -, - A., -
diet, and il is so ordered"
Webster and Craig for plaintiffs; s. G. Courtney, u
District Attorney and Ethan Allen, Assistant L. D. Die
tTict-Attorney, for defendant.