New-York tribune., 1868-03-20
THE COURTS

THE SHERRY WINE CAsE-THE SUMMING UP.
Yesterday was the 18th day of the trial of
this case in the United States District Court The tes
mony was concluded the day previous Counsel Tor
the claimants summed up the case In very elaborate
argument taking the entire day. The following is
Court and Gentlemen OF the Jury This Ia very import
ant case and should engage your careful and serious
att ntioD and the testimony in II should be- weighed
without prejudice IL Is an Important case viewed SIN
The Conclusion arrived at in ii will influence the
disposition to be made OF similar cases, invOlVlng
in the aggregate an amount OF nearly $4,000.
n claimants lad purchased these wines In the market OF
Cadz they would have been Obliged to Invoice them
these wines at Cadz required TO invoice them at
the market value in Cadiz What was the market value
facture We hold that In liberal sense. the claimants
did not manufacture these wines They merely blended
two manufactured wines-a dry wine and sweet wine
TO produce the wines In question. THIS blending was
Simple and inexpensve process IT cost but about = per
thus blended were inyoiced at their cost price
to claimants with a commission added You ,d
insure their condemnation, hut you must
find that they underyaued knowingly, with guilty
knowledge and intent 10 defraud The duty
OF consuls abroad TO ascertain prices current and
market values inthe districts where they are sent
them certifying invoices correct when the invoices
OF 80 years. have invarabc certified the correctness OF
claimants invoices. These cOnSus had much better
OF claimants wines than the Government detectives and
experts, Farwell. Marshal Hershaw, who were never
Cadz. The idea that wine merchant II cOlpeeu 10
sell all his wines in Cadz Ia absurd These merchants have
right build MP market for hcr wines In this country
and send their here 10 bc sold in this market.
Why are not some Of these consus or other parties
brought here by the Government 10 prove The guilt OF
claansl The Government dare not bring them. Their
information is wanted. The Government Appraisers
had appraised these Wines time and again. at the value
at which they invoiced and yet for some reason,
owing TO some influence, the value was raised si
per quarter-cask. One OF these Appraisers said,
when pressed, that the price was raised because
the Government wanted the question Of value
tested by the claimants taking appeal. Sup
pose the claimants did not appeal, what would
have become OF their winef The iD0nners know. But
claimants did appeal and on Tcappraisement, by ap
prasers substantially selected by the Government, the
value lowered TO the value stated by claimants In
their invoices; and yet IN spite OF this these wines
seized, and the innocent owners OF them are branded
Infamous, subjected to ndIgty and expense, and tho
existence Of their business, which has taken 80 years 10
build imperilled. The Government by It's strong arm,
after decision against 10 by its tribunal, seiZcs
these wines and desires 10 cOnilScate them
Counsel continued reviewing all the salient points OF
the testimony and citing the statutes applicable to the
Counsel for the Government will sum up on Friday
to-day.