The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-06-07
U. s.. CIRCUIT URT-CHLEF JUSTICE
S. p. CHASE, PRESIDING.

u
------------------------
U. s.. CIRCUIT COURT CHIEF FJUSTTCE
S. p. CHASE, PRESIDING.
The court opened at ten O'Clock Saturday
morning, Ohief Justice 8. P. Chase and Judge
Bryan on tha bench. -
Chief Justice Chase delivered the following
opinions:
AND OTHER MERCHANDISE vs. IHE UNITED
sTATEs-IN ADMIRALTY.
This cause comes here ON appeal from de-
| cree of condemnation pronounced bv the Dis
trict Court against certain merchandise, as
forfeited to the United States, by reason of at
| tempted fraud upon the revenue.
The decree Of fcondemnation is issued against
tho whole cargo Of the British schooner Aid
| mentioned in an involca Of goods consigned to
! Salas & Co., and imported into Charleston ON
the second Of July, 1856, from Matanzas in the
Ihe packages falsely entered upon the in
voice were four hog shea ds entered as contain
| ing sugar, each OF which in fact contained q
i cask OF brandy or distilled spirits, packed in
sugar; and three other hogsheads entered as
! sugar. each Of which in fact contained case
OF segars packed in sugars and tour quarter
| casks entered as wine, each Of which in fact
contained rum or distilled spirits. There we're
twenty-five Aogsheads entered as sugar, in all
OF which seven unlawfully entered. as first
stated, and thirty quarter casks entered as
| rest Of the hogsheads of sugar, the rest of the
! quarter casks of wine and the whole remain
der Of the cargo consisting of two hundred
| and fifty barrels and twenty-three tierees Of
| molasses, OF Q hundred and thirty-ope barrels
| Of sugar and large quantity Of other goods,
such as maccaroni olive oil, sugar, syrup and
the vino. seem to have been truly entered
| upon the invoice. The whole invoice was con-
signed to Salas Co.. of Charleston. The
| evidence excludes all reasonable doubt that
| the goods. except twenty bags Of coffee, we're
| purchased by or for account Of Salas Il 10. in
| with funds furnished by that firm. The whole
| cargo was shipped by DaCosta & MADAM. un-
der the direction Of F. P, Salas. and bills were
drawn by them on Saias & 90. for the amount
| Of it.
The claims put in by other persons are un-
suppoIt Ited by the proofs. 1t is remarkable that
Salas & Co. disclaim ownership and claim only
| as conslgnces. AS cOnsignees, however. this
| Arm. through one of it's members, F. P. Salas,
| represents the invoice as true, made an entry
OF the goods by reason OF it, at the Custom
house, Charleston, and obtained the usual per-
NIT to land part Of the goods, for which he
was prepared to pay the duties. part Of
these goods were landed aud conveyed to the
house of fSalas 4 Co. While the Aid was being
discharged under the permit, it was scov-
tered on the invoicc. The entry and permit
were, therefore. revoked, and all the goods
90 board the schooner or landed, were seized,
and the bill now before us was fled for con.
demnationo Two grounds are relied upon for
the reversal Of the decree Of the District
Court.
First, that the seizure of part of the goods
was upon land, and that as to this portion
there is no jurisdiction in admiralty. Second,
that the forfeiture contemplated by the statute
Is OF the fraudulent packages only, and not Of
the whole invoice,
Fo the first objection think it is sufficient
answer that no objection to the jurisdiction is
taken in the claim and answer of Salas & 20.
But il the objection were not too late, it would
be difficult to sustain it. The goods were in
the act Of being discharged. The discharge
Fad not been completed. large portion was
discovered until part had been landed. I'm
der the circumstances, it is not unreasonable
to regard that portion of the goods which had
esaa Pgs 81 ssasf ss ss
,gssssssisaa saSsssa Sejs1sss s. jtSs saaa
gress,ve severity with whcx
forced. by forfei! ures, the payment of'Wtities
the Eorfeiture Of the psrticuar articles import
ed in violation Of law, afterward by forfeiture
of the package in which those articles we're
contaiaed: and finally enacting the law of
This last act provides that no goods, wares
or merchandise imported after July /, 1868,
shall be admitted to entry unless on produc-
tion OF the required invoice and compliance
with the other terms prescribed. and that II
any owner. consignee or agent of any goods,
wares or merchandise shall attempt to make
entry OF them by false invoice, said goods
shall be forfeited.
What goods? The particular articles fraudu-
lently imported. That will hardly be contended,
for it would MITIGATE the already existing penal
ty; aud the policy OF Congress, in view OF the
fraud. was to retain, not diminish, the former
eurety: Was It the packages in which the
fraudulent articles was concealed? This con.
struction wculd leave the former law, in this
vA~uA Sk>
purpose Of Congress to alter it, and augment
the penalty. No construction will carry out
the obvious design except that which the
words Of the law nanifestly suggest. and
n0ooe gSsnasya Segs S
structioI condemns ali the gooas included in
the invoice, except the twenty bags Of coffee
District Court will. therefore, be affirmed.
J. II. BALDWIN vs. CAROLINE A. LAMAR, ADMINS
TRATRIx OF O. A. L. LAMAR.
This was originally suit on which q verdict
was obtained the 9th Of May, 1859. by the
plaintiff against the defendant, for $3.50. On
motion, this verdict was set aside, and new
trial was ordered. Onthe 18th Of May, 1850,
another verde was rendered against the de-
fendant for $14 666 66. On the 4th of June,
extended for two months. On the 9th Of Au-
gust. the time tor filing exceptions was again
extended to the LIST OF November, 1860.
The civil war, which soon followed, prevent
CN 6uy 1uTAu0r dCClOu HL CuaL tlm0. Ou C00 1Stn
of February, 1857, the plaintiff proposed to file
q Transcript OF the proceedinos OF the Circuit
Court in this case. and also in the case Of Bald
win vs. @. A. Il. Lamar, and others. A rule
to show cause why the order prayed for should
not be made. The rule was only served and
returned, and on the 2lst OF May. 1867, the or
der was made and the Transcript fled.
the verdict evidenced by this record. The
statute of the State, which has been practi.,
cally adopted as the rule Of proceeding In this
lost or abstracted, when proved and filed,
shall have precisely the same effect as il the
record had never been disturbed.
The question then is: What would be the
right OF the plaintiff If the verdict, obtained in
May. 1850 had remained on the record Of the
court during this whole period, aud now, for
the first time, Judgment was asked upon it2
Undoubtedly Judgment ought to be entered
aaino xn0 Ealxc. The acc,dants and auontn nR