The New York herald., 1870-12-11
THE COU r T S.
fhe ssv6n-Thirty Counterfeit Case : Tho
aevdust Countsrfeiters Bailed = Lookup
Evans. the Alleged Abortlonist Before
the Court on Habeas Corpus-An Allow
ance Granted in tho Fisk-Gray
Subtraction for Services.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
Govcruing Prices for tho Assessment Of I'M
pert Duties-Pennsylvania Land Titles.


pert Dutics-Pennsylvania Land Titles.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 10. 1870
I, No. IL. John Kfn,ban Administrator, Us John b.
GO0drlch-EyTor TO the Circuit court or the District
or Massachusetts is an action against the
former Collector OF Boston to back the sum
of $l566l alleged TO have been Illegally exacted
duties on certain bales Of wool imported from Cape
Town In June, 1851. The wool was bought by the
importers OF that place for little than twenty
cents per pound and was invoiced ana entered at
the purchase price. The act in force at the time
OF the importation exempted from duty unmanu.
factured sleeps wool OF the value Of
twenty cents or less at the port OF exporta-
zion. The wool was bought some months before
shipment and AT the date or expectation had declined
In value at Cape Town TO less tnan twenty cents
but the appraisers declined TO make any aDpra.se-
ment at less than the invoced price. claiming tnat
they had no authority to do SO. At the collectors
request, however, they made an un0ificial state
ment to him that the WOOL at prices tnen current
Rt the place expectation, would DC Tree OF duty.
In the court below the decision was that, SO lar as
the collection OF duties on the wool was concerned,
voice price, and the Judgment was for the defcnd-
ant Iae plaintiff in error insists that It was clearly
the intention or Congress that, In determining
whether the wool was free dutiable, the actual
value Of the article at the port and period OF ex-
purchase or invoice price; and II is claimed
fnat was the practice Of the department at
decision OF the secretary. The government insists
that the provso OF the act OF 1857 controls. IL was
"Pr0vlded, neVerlneleSs, Lnat unuer no clrcun-
stances shall the duty be assessed upon amount
less than The invoice or entered value, any law OF
Congress to the contrary Notwithstanding" BY the
revenue laws, therefore, the invoice is regarded
~ mere bill OF parcels but as q solemn statement
Of the importer, supported by oath indicating
the value OF the imports; and 1t s conclusive upon
the Importer, except wnere provision is made to the
contrary, and no such provision is made for q case
where the actual value Is less than the invoice
value To the objection that this construction pro-
duce great hardship t Is answered that the values
In reference 10 which duties assessed aret-
trary, and that any seeming hardship cannot be
remeded by this court. q. Gushing for appellant;
A. T. ASerman Attorney General, for the Collector.
No. IL. Mary A. Brobst ct al John r. Brock ct
a.-Errtr to the Circuit Court Jor the Eastern Dis.
trfct or ofPennsvtudnta. is an action of eject
ment recover portions OF tract ofland In Schuyl.
Kill county, Pa which was surveyed in 1893, and
afterwards patented to one George Crout. From him
title passed. to one Smith, who conveyed 1t to
Nicnael Bro bst and three others SHARES OF one
fourth EACH. Subsequently Brobst mortgaged his
portion anG afterwards falling In business con.
essed udgm ent, which placed other parties In pos
lien and this litigation grows OF the
confusion of title resulting. The questions are OF
fact chiefly an unimportant X. j. Brent for plain
tifIs error; G gorge w. Bidde for defendants.