The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1869-03-02
The GREAT WINE CASE.
JUDGE DURELL'S DECISION.
THE WINE DECLARED FORFEITED.

in the United States Court, Judge Durell
frat oyerrued the point raised by the coun-
sci for the claimants just previous to the argu'
ment Of the case, and after the closing OF the evil
dence, that the case ought to have been tried by
jury ruling that trial by jury having been distinct
" waived by the claimants by the very fact OF
their not praying for jury and submitting their
case to the court; this objection came too late.
The court then proceeded.
The libel of information in this case IL framed
under the act Of March 8, 1868. (l2th Statutes al
large, 1917
That act changed the method in which imports
tons should be made, both as to the form TO be
observed abroad and form to be observed at the
ports OF entry. The importance ofsthat change is
shown by an examination OF the acts touching I'M
portations, passed prior to the statute OF 1865.
Under the acts Of ISIS and 1923 I'D Statutes at
Large, ABS and 1887 all invoices of goods imported
into the country by persons residing out OF the
United States were required TO be verified by oath
before o consul or other officer OF the United
States residing abroad. By the act of 1854 "a,
Statutes at Large, 556) all invoices, whether BY
persons residing in the United States otherwise
were REQUIRED to be verified by oath before the
consul or commercial agent Of the United States In
the district where the goods are manufactured or
from which they are sent, and If there be no con-
sui or commercial agent Of the united States in
the said district the verication shall be made by
the consul or commercial agent OF the
United States at the nearest point, or at
the port from which the goods are shipped.
in which case the oath shall be administered
by some public officer duly authorized to
administer oaths and transmitted with q
copy of the invoice to the consul or commercial
agent for bis authorization. The act of 1853
changed the entire system with regard TO invoices.
The verifcation abroad by oath was dispensed
with, and it provided that the owner should pre-.
sent 10 the nearest consul OF our government, in.
voices in triplicate giving the cost, or actual mar
Ia ..1-r AZ ,txaw.I ..~LA
ported and that these invoices should have thereon
indorsed a declaration that they were in all
respects true, ;" and that they contain true state
ment of the actual cost or market value of said
merchandise at the time when. and at the place
where this same was purchased or produced. It
further requires that If any owner, etc., shall
knowingly make or attempt 10 make an entry of
merchandise by means of any false invoice, or by
means Of any other false or fraudulent practice or
appliance whatever, the said merchandise shall be
forfeited. The act also requires that the forms OF
the oath required by the act of 1923 shall be so
modified as 10 conform to the provisions of the
act of 1868.
This statute appears to me to have been most
ably devised to secure true and complete informa-
ton to all importatons thus 10 enable the off.
GERS OF customs to collect the just revenues Of
the government, and it is the duty of the court to
apply it firmly and strictly in aid of 80 important
an object of legislation.
The violations of the statute charged in the
libel, and which 1t will be necessary for me TO
consider, are three First, the entry of the wines
by Pisggio without taking the requisite oath; sec
ond, an entry made knowingly with an invoice and
declaration containing false and fraudulent under
valuation; and, third, an entry made knowingly
with an invoice and declaration containing false
and fraudulent statements. touching the character
of the merchandise imported.
First, as to the entry made by Piaggio without
taking the requisite oath. Piaggio took the oath
prescribed by the act of 1923, and not the oath
prescribed by the act of 1928 SO modified as to
conform TO the provisions OF the act OF 1868.
without such conformity, the invoice and entry
made would in some important particulars have
no verifcstion other than the declaration signed
abroad.
The taking of the oath prescribed by the act of
1923, not so modified as to conform to the act OF
1868, was an entry, or an attempt to make an
entry, by means of fraudulent document or
paper.n or by means of I" false and fraudulent
practice or appliance" under the statute, and 10
punishable with a forfeiture of the goods so
entered or attempted to be entered.
Second. as TO the differentiation. The value in
voiced was five francs the case. The weight of
testimony shows that the actual value of the red
wine was eight and one-hslf francs the case.
The cost Of box, bottles, corks. capsules. labels
and other requisites Of preparation for shipment,
Ia shown TO be four francs, sixteen centimes the
case, leaving, according to the invoice valuation.
but eighty-four centimss, or about sixteen cents
the value of the contents of the twelve bottles
beng one and onethird Of a cent per bottle.
| cannot come to the conclusion that such
valuation carries with II the truth.
The invoices of subsequent importatons intro.
duced on the part OF the government. aud wherein
wine OF the same quality as that libeled In this
case is valued as high seven and half francs,
while the testimony shows little or no interms
date valuation in price, weighs heavily with the
court.
Therefore, after a full review and careful con.
sderaton of the evidence adduced on both Sides
/ am satisfied that the differentiation is made
out.
Third, az 10 the fslse and fraudulent statements
touching the character Of the merchandise i'm
ported. That the wine was falsely described 10
the invoice is admitted, nay urged by the claim
ant. This admission is conclusive against him, for
the invoice Is not in all respects true" and the
false description or naming II the wine was
false and fraudulent practice under the statute.
Moreover, the act OF June Both, 1864, subjects
limitations to the highest rate OF duty imposed
upon the article initiated. This wine, the red wine
in the invoice. II it 10 Blaye Supereure, then il
should have paid duty at the rate of eighteen
francs the case, such having been shown to be
the value of the best quality Of Blaye." II it is
an imitation, then it should have paid duty at
the rate of eighteen francs the case, that being
the value Of the wine initiated thus, in either
case. there was q palpsble fraud upon the revenue
attempted.
find as the facts OF the case that the allega-
tons contained in the first article OF the original
libel of information, and in the first, second and
third articles of the amended libel Of information
have been proved.
libeled in this suit he condemned, and forfeited
TO the government Of the United States.
HoRRIRTE CRrnRs-A Ne0y,o lteJoDfs IN P0r