The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1867-08-27
Important Legal ID. cision.
o0NsTRUcTI3N y; OF THE ACT OF CONGRESS
ARIES AND INVOICES. ~ EN-

c9NsfKSSrtpN az MtEH ,s0a 0F THE III AT OF CONGRESS
P1Fs .Mn ',NvS,GFNS IsTS, uN REFERENCE TO EN-
CIRCUIT COURT OF UNITED STATES:
First Circuit, Maine District.
| Samuel B. Locke Plaintiff, in error, u.s. United
States.
CIFFoRD,J.
This was q libel of Information, and the case
comes before the court on a writ of error to the
District Court of the United States for this
district. Substance of the charge, as set forth
in tbn first count of the information, is that
certain goods, wares and merchandise were
on the first day of May, 1864, imported from
the port of Quebec in Canada, into the port oi
Island Pond, in the State of Vermont, ana that
the agent of the owner on the seventh day OF
May, in The same year, at the Custom-house III
the latter port, did knowingly make an entry
of the same, by means of an invoice which dld
not contain true statement of all the particu-
lars required in that behalf by the act Of Con-
gress specially referred to in tho same count.
Five other counts are embraced in the intor-
nation as more fully appears in the transcript
of the record. Seizure was made ON land, at
Portland on the eleventh day of July, 1894,
and on the twenty seventh day Of the same
month the present plaintiff appeared and made
oath that he was the sole owner of the goods
described in the information. Claimant at the
same time pleaded two pleas in answer to the
entire charge.
THAT the goods did not, nor did any part
thereof, become forfeited in the manner and
form as in the information is alleged
2-That if the invoice did not in all respects
conform to the requirements of the acs of Con-
| gress, such omission arose from inadvertence,
| error and mistake, and not from any design to
| defraud the United States, or to evade the pay
| ment of the legal duties. Issues were joined
upon the respective pleas, and the jury on the
| nineteenth day of January, 1865, returned their
verdict that the goods were forfeited as alleged
| in the libel. Judgment of forfeiture was ac-
| cordingly entered on the thirty first day Of
| March, in the same year, and the claimant
sued out this writ of error.
Exceptions were duly filed by the claimant
to the refusal of the court to instruct the jury
| as requested, and to the several instructions
| given to the jury. Before proceeding, how
ever, to consider the questions presented in the
| exceptions, it becomes necessary to advert to
| certain provisions in the act of Congress upon
the subject and to the facts in the case in order
that the nature of the controversy may be un-
1 derstoOd.
| Invoices of goods imported from any for
| eign country into the United States, are re-
quired to be made in triplcate, and it the goods
were actually purchased the invoices must be
signed by the person owning or shipping the
same, or if the goods were procured otherwise
than by purchase, the invoices must be sig ned
| oy the manufacturer or owner of the goods
Such invoices are also REQUIRED. at or before
the shipment of the goods, to be produced to our
consul, vice-consul, or commercial agent, near
| est the place of shipment, and shall have en-
4 dorsed thereon when so produced declara-
| tion signed by the purchaser, manufacturer
| owner, or agent, setting forth that the invoice
is in all respects true and if the goods are sub
| ject to ad Udloren duty, and were obtained by
| purchase that the invoice contains true and
full statement of the time when, and the place
where, the same were purchased, and the actua
cost thereof, and all charges thereon. They are
also required to contain certain statements as to
discounts, bounties, drawbacks, and the cur
rency paid by the purchaser. and when the goods
| were obtained in any other manner than by pur-
| chase, the actual market value thereo at the
time aud place, when and where the same
| were procured or manufactured; and If subject
to specific duty, the actual quantity thereof,
and that no different invoice OF the goods has
been or will be furnished to any one. II Statutes
| at Large 737. Requirement also is that the
| person producing the invoice shall, at the same
time, declare to the officer the port at which
| it is intended to make entry OF the goods. AL
these particulars appearing as required in tn:
| section, it is then made the duty Of the consul
vice-consul, or commercial agent as the cast
may be, to endorse upon each of the triplicatt
| invoices certificate under his hand and off
cial seal, stating that the invoice has been pro
duced to him, with the date when produced
and the name of the person producing it, aDf
the port at which it shall be declared to be til,
Intention to make the entry. Same section con
tains penal clause, which provides that if any
such owner, consignee, or agent of any sucl
goods shall knowingly make, or attempt Il
make an entry thereof by means of any falsa
invoices or false certificate of any such officer
or of any invoice which shall not contain trut
statement of all the particulars so required, ol
by means OF any false or fraudulent document
4 or paper, or OF any other false or fraudulent
practice or appliance whatsoever, the goods Oh
their value shall be forfeited. Ibid 1885,
2. More difficulty is encountered in stating
| the facts OF the case, as the whole evidence, ap
| parently in the order it was introduced at the
trial, is Incorporated into the bill of exceptions
| Such practice is attended with serious incon-
venience and certainly finds no support either
| in the decisions of the Supreme Court OF in
the standard treatises upon the subject. Only
so much OF the evidence given at the trial as
may be necessary to present the legal question
raised and noted, should be embodied in the
bill OF exceptions in any case, all beyond that
serves only to cucumber the record and embar
rass both court and counsel, as no fact tTied by
a jury can be otherwise reexamined in any
court of the United States than according t.
rules of common law. Teller VS.. Eikhert 8
I al, How. 297; Johnston VS.. Jones & al.
Black go; Pinnoek & al. VS.. Douglass Pet
10; 2 1idd Pr 662; us. vs.. Kingral How. 845
Cases may be imagined where the embarrass
ment arising from conflicting testimony would
| be SO great that it would become the duty OF
the court TO decline to e-examine the case and
| to dismiss the writ of error. Present case
| however, is not OF that character as there is
/ not much conflict in that portion of the ties.
timony which it will be necessary to consider
| in datqrminlnO the lQOal uua inv ~
the record. Goods, of the description mention
! ed in the information, filling fifteen merchan-
disc cars were imported by the claimant from
Quebec into the United States, between the
| twenty second day of April, 1864, and the third
day of May following and the evidence tends TO
show that all of the cars, except one, with the
goods on board arrived at Island Pond in the
State of Vermont in the month ofApril of that
year. First car left Point Levy opposite Que
bee on the twenty second day of April and the
last one on the second day of May and arrived
at Island Pond on the next day. Much the
larger portion of the importation consisted o
chain cables, bar iron, scrap iron and hooI
iron, but the evidence shows that an invoice
was presented to the American Consul at Que
ice on the twenty third day OF April of tha
year wherein all the iron was described al
"oid chains and iron" and that it was therein
rated at uniform cost of thirty dollars pc
ton. Being duly executed and containing In
proper declaration under oath, the consul grant
ed the required certificates. Testimony alss
! shows that the bar iron was slowed under tbf
| chains and scrap iron and that the agent OF
the owner claimed that the whole should be
| admitted to entry as old scrap iron. Such
| claim was made after the cars arrived at Island
| Pond, but finding that the goods or some OF
them had been examined by the officers tf the
customs he delayed making the entry and that
invoice was never presented. Sufficient goods
to load one Car had not come forward and he
prepared new invoice describing the iron "a:
"bar iron scrap iron and old chains" increasing
the quantity from eighty-eight TO one hundred
and twenty-five tons but without any change
as to the cost. Acting under representations
that the goods had not been forwarded the
consul was induced on the second day OF May
10 cancel the first invoice and to append the
required certificates to the substitute. All OF
| the goods were then at Island Pond except
one car load which remained at Point Levy
and went forward ON that day. The agent OF
the owner knew that all the goods except the
one car load had arrived at the port OF entry
because the conductor or person in charge OF
the cars at Island Pond had at his request
opened some or all of them and allowed hun to
exam inc the goods. Last car arrived on the
third day of May and the agent OF the owner
four days afterwards made the entry in the
custom house at Island Pond, using the sub
stituted invoice prepared by the owner
or his agent and certified by the consul after
all the goods except one ear load had been i'm
ported into the United States, and had actual
iy arrived ut the port of entry. Enough of the
testimony is presented in this statement TO ex
hibit the nature of the controversy and to en-
able tue court to test the accuracy OF the in-
structions given by the presiding justice and Il
| determine whether there is any merit in tn.