The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-06-07
q. s. CIRCUITCOURT-C -CHIEFJUSTICE
S.P. CHASE, PRESIDING.

U. s. CIRCUIT COURT T-CHIEFJUSTICE
SP. CHASE, PRESIDING.
The court opened at ten O'Clock Saturday
morning, Chief Justice 8. P. Chase and Judge
Bryan on the bench.
Chief Justice Chase delivered the following
opinions:
TWO HUNDRED And FIFTY BARRELS OF MoLAssEs
AND OTHER MERCHANDISE vs. The UNITED
sTATIS-N ADMIRALTY.
ibis 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 condemnation is issued against
the whole cargo Of the British schooner Aid,
mentioned in an invoice Of goods consigned to
SaIas & Co., and imported into Charleston on
the second of July, 1866 from Matanzas IN the
-'I The packages pa falsely entered upon the in
voice were four hog asheads entered as contain
ing sugar, each of which in fact contained
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 sugar; and tour quarter
casks entered as wine, each OF which ~ tact
contained rum or distilled spirits. There were
of which seven unlawrully entered. as first
stated, and thirty quarter casks entered as
wine, Of which Iour unlawfally entered. Ihe
rest Of the hogsheads of sugar, the rest OF the
quarter casks of wine and the whole remain
der of tho cargo, consisting OF two hundred
and fifty barrels and twenty-three tlerces OF
molasses, ole hundred aud thirty-one barrels
of suyar and large quantity Of other goods,
such as maccaroni, olive oil, sugar, syrup and
the wine, seem to have been truly entered
upon the invoice. The whole invoice was con-
signed to Saas & Co., of Charleston. The
evidence excludes all reasonable doubt that
the goods. except twenty bags OF coffee, were
purchased by or for account OF Salas q 10. 10
Cuba, either through DaCosta & MADAM or
with funds furnished by that firm. The whole
cargo was shipped by DaCosta MADAM, un-
der. the direction of F. P. Salas, AMI bills were
drawn by them on Salas & Co. for the amount
of it.
The claims put in by other persons are un-
supported by Tue proofs. 1t Is remarkable that
Salas & Co. disclaim ownership and claim only
as consignces. AS consignees. however, this
firm, through one OF it's members, +. 2. Saias,
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 ne
was prepared to pay the duties. A part OF
these goods we're landed and conveyed to the
house Of S.las & Co. While the Aid was being
discharged under the permit, 1t was scoV-
cred that part of the goods we're falsely en-
tered on the invoic'. The entry and permit
were, therefore, revoked, and all the goods
mentioned in the invoice, whether remaining
on board the schooner or landed, were selZsd
and the bill now before US was filed Tor con
demnation. 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 Oh
the whole invoice.
10 the first objection think it is q sufficient
answer that no objection to the 1urlsdlctionm m is
taken in the claim and answer OF Salas 20:
But il the objection were not too late, 1t would
be difficult to sustain it. The goods were In
the act Of being discharged. The discharge
Fad not been completed. large portion was
still on board the vessel. The fraud was not
discovered until part had been landed Un-
der the circumstances, it is not unreasonable
to regard that portion of the goods whlch nao
been put on shore as still part OF the cargo
Of the vessel, and the whole as subject to the
Jurisdiction Of the admiralty.
Tie other objection mus. also be overruled. 1
shall not now enter into the history OF tue pro-
gressive severity with which Congress had en-
forced, by forfellures, the payment OF duties
on imported merchandise, first providing 1or
the forfeiture Of the particular ARTICLES import
ed in violation Of law, aiterward by forfeiture
OF the package in which those articles we're
contained and finally enactng the law OF
March 8. 1868.
Jhls last act provides that no goods, wares
or merch lndise imported after July l, 1868,
shall be admitted TO entry unless on produc-
tion OF the required invoice aud compliance
with the other terms prescribed. and that II
any owner. consicnec OF agent OF any Sooas,
w.res or merchandise shall attompt to make
entry OF them by false invoice, said goods
shall be forfeited.
What goods? Ihc particular articles fraudu-
lently imported. That will hardly be cont ended
Tor il would mitigate thc already existing penal
ty; and the policy of Congress, in view OF the
exigenccs OF the revenue aud OF imaginary
fraud, was to rc;ein, not diminish, the former
surety. Was it the packages i'll which the
fraudulent articles WAS concealed? This con-
struction would leave the former law, IN this
respect, unaltered, while it was the manifest
purpose of Congress to alter it, and augment
the penalty. No construction will carry out
the obvious design except that whica the
words of the law manifesty suggest. and
which make the penalty apply, to the whole
invoice, owned or shlpoed by Salas. This con-
struclion condemns all the goo Is included in
the invoice, except the twenty bags OF cotfeo
belonging to Gonzales. The decree OF the
District Court will, therefore, be affirmed.
J. h. BALDWIN vs.. CAROLINE A. LAMAR. ADMINS
TRATRIX OF c. A. L. LAMAR.
This was originally suit on which verdict
was obtained the 9th of May, 1859, by the
plaintiff against the defendant, for s25 $50. On
motion, this verdict was set aside, and new
trial was ordered. On the 18Th OF May, 1850,
another verdict was rendered against the de-
fendant for $14 666 &c. On the 4sh OF June.
the time for filing the bill OF exceptions was
extended ior two months. On the 8!h OF Au-
gust, the time for filing exceptions was again
extended to the 1st OF November, 1861.
The civil war, which soon followed, prevent
ed any further action at that timo On the 18Th
of February, 1867, the plaintiff proposed to tile
a transcript OF the proceedings OF the Circuit
Court in this case. and also in the case OF Bald
win vs.. c. A. L.. Lamar, and others. A rule
was issued upon the administrative, Lamar,
to show cause why the order pra!e for should
not be made. The rule was ONLY served and
returned, and on the 21st of May. 1867, the Or
der was made and the transcript fled.
motion is now made for judgment upon
the verdict evidenced by this record. The
statute Of the State, which has been practi-
cally adopted as the rule Of proceeding IN this
court, provides that the transcript OF record
lost or abstracted, when proved and filed,
shall have precisely the same effect as ii the
record had never been disturbed.
The question then s: What would be the
right of the plaintiff if the verdict obtllned III
Nav. 1860 had renamed on the record of tho