The New York herald., 1873-11-07
BUSINESS IN THE OTHER COURTS.
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT.
irrespective Protests''-A Law OF Con-
gress JudIcialy Construed for the
First Time-Importnnt Decision by
Judge Woodruff.


First Time-Importa Decision by
Judge Woodruff.
Not long since there was tried before Judge
Woodruff the case OF Sigmund Ullman against
Thomas Murphy, ex-Collecter OF this port. The
action wac brought to recover for an alleged
excess OF duties paid under protest on an impor-
tation OF goods. The facts submitted to the Judge
appear to have been these The goods were i'm
ported ana entered for warehousing on the 1st of
January, 1871, The amount OF duties demanded
by the Collector was liquidated on the 1st
OF February, 1871. The plaintiff, on the Goth
or June, 1871, paid the duties demanded,
previous importation OF the same goods was
entered in December TO- 1s7O and the plaintiff paid
the duties Ut the same rate. He filed protest at
the same time, and attached to 1t the words ~
intend this protest to apply to all future similar
importatlons made by me-" Counsel for the plain
TIN, Mr.. Sidney Webster, argued that the notice
thus given was "a sufficient continuing no.
tlce;" that it applied to all like goods imported 10y
Mr. Gilman, and came up to the requirements OF
the acts of congress which made protest neces-
sary for the purpose OF emitting the importer to
take an action for the recovery of money erro-
neously or wrongfuly exacted by the collector.
Mr. Simons, United States Assistant District At
torney, contended that a prospective protest OF
this character, under the act OF 1854 was not suf
hcient, and that therefore, the plaintiff could not
maintain his action.
on the above question. He holds that the present
case arises under the act OF 1854, the fourteenth
any vessel or OF any goodsn the "decision OF the
Collector or Customs at the port OF importation
and entry as TO the rate and amount OF duties to
be paid on the tonnage OF such vessel or on such
goods "shail be final against all persons interested
therein, unless the owners "shail, within ten days
after the ascertainment and liquidation oil the
dutes,o 'give notice, in writing, TO the Collector
on each entry, If dissatisfied with his decision,
setting forth therein distinctly and specifically the
grounds OF his objection thereto.n
''Thls act,n observes Judge Woodruff. "has not
heretofore been under judicial consideration, and
/ n q a n
opinion OF its meaning with reference to prospec-
tive or continuing protest. The act requires that
the notice OF protest shall be given on each
entry Whether these words were inserted in
view OF the difference between the construction
gwen TO the previous laws by the Court in this dis
trct, do not know but they are significant words
and by sound rules OF interpretati / must
gress intended that meaning. My conclusion, that
under the act OF 1864 such prospective or con-
tlnuing protests as to future importations not
valid and enectiye, and that the protest in this
case does not satisfy the statute requires, accord
ing to the stipulation made by the parties that the
jury render verdict Tor the deendant.n
The Rights of Citizens in Times of
War-The Case OF Britton VS.. General
Benjamin F. Butler-Judgment for the
Defendant.
Yesterday Judge Woodruff delivered his opinion
in the case OF William A. Britton w. General Ben
jamn F. Butler. The particulars OF this case have
been recently fully reported in the HERALD. II
appeared that when General Butler was In CON-
mand OF the Department OF the Gulf person was
seized by the Union picket near New Orleans,
while making his way there from Confederate ter
ritory. In has possession found checks to the
amount OF about $4,000, which were drawn by
firm in Natchez, Miss, upon house in New or.
leans. The checks seized by order OF General
Butler, and the amount OF them which ne received
at the Citlzens' Bank, was turned over to the
government. The defendant brought suit against
the General TO recover the amount OF the drafts.
The General put In defence, claiming that in
what he did In regard to the checks in question he
was protected by the proclamatlons OF the
President and by the operation OF martial law then
IN existence Judge Woodruff, In his decision
says that 1t ls not claimed in this case that the
firm OF William A. Britton a Co., OF Natchez had
any special deposit in the Citizens Bank OF New
Orleans which could be Identified as their money
At most, II any money received by that bank stood
10 their credit as deposit subject to draft In the
ordinary course OF business that made them
creditors or the Dank and the bank their debtors t
was conceded, on the trial. that in April, 1861 the
firm OF W. A. Britton Co., then composed of the
pialntif and Audley 9. Britton and G. w. Koontz
was dissolved by war and the departure of the
plantin from Natchez then within the territory OF
the rebels the other two Of the partners still
naming at NatcheZ The check mentioned in the
pleadings was drawn, not on the plaintin, out by
his SAID former partners at Natcnez, and for the
purpose Of availing themselves within rebel terri
tory Of money or credit which they had with the
said bank IL, az the plaintin insists such receipt
Of the money was without authority or right, and
II be conceded that the plalntif can matter OF
law, treat the money thus received by
the defendant as his identical money,
ti17s use, then the act OF the defendant
was plainly wrong done by the defendant by
tue and under color Of his authority as Major Gen
era oi the United Stats assigned 10 the command
OF the forces at New Orleans, within section 4 or
the act OF March 3 1862 and as such is within the
limitation OF two years, within which alter such
wrong the action should have been brought The
paintln cannot by the mere form OF his action 40
away with the statute which was intended to pro-
ect the officers OF the government against suits
OF actons In any lorm for the alleged wrong nn-
leas brought within the time limited The action
was not commenced until June 6, 1865 Judgment
must DC directed for the defendant, The District
Attorney and Mr.. John T. Devin ior the de-
ienoant General Butler; Mr.. Wheeler for the plain
Action Upon n Distiller's Bond-An Oh
stinate Juror.
Before Judge Woodruff.
The United States vs. Charles Deylin.-Tbe
United States brought action against Mr. DeyiD
upon distiller's bond, executed by Mr. Deylip. as
one OF the sureties, In October 1868 The proof OF
the formal execution OF the bond and that the prn.
cpa had failed to pay the taxes for the months OF
November and December, 1868 and July. 1869.
amounting to over $4,000, was made.
The defence, which was conducted by ex.Judoe
Cardozo, proved by Mr.. Dcvlin and M Johrf
Butler, also surety on the bond, that the appica.
ton TO him was to execute a bond as surety Tor
John q, laJman coat ior that purpose he attended