The New York herald., 1873-11-01
COURT or GENERAL SESSIONS.
A FOrger Sent to the state Prison.
Before Recorder Hackett.

Forger Sent to the state Prison.
Before Recorder Hackett.
Yesterday John d. Couse, who pleaded guilty
few days since to forgery the third degree, was
sent to the State Prison for two years and SIX
months.
An Alleged shoplifter Discharged.
Elizabeth Ormsby, who was convicted some
months ago Of acting In completely with proles-
sional shophlter who stole a valuable shawl from
the store of McCreery & Co., was discharged. Mr..
A. Oakley Hall defended her, and took the case to
the Court OF Appeals where the conviction was
reversed and new trial granted. Assistant Dis
trict Attorney Rollins said that as the appellate
Court had decided tnat the law and the evidence
did not warrant the conviction OF the accused and
as the prosecution could not produce additional
testimony, he consented to her discharge from
custody.
Important to New York Merchants.
case has just been reached ON the calendar OF
the United States Supreme Court, at Washington,
and is awaiting the decision Of that tribunal,
which can hardly be over estimated to its i'm
portance to the mercantile community. The Pro-
test act OF June @ 1864 directs that the decision OF
the Collector OF the Port shall be nnal as to the
rate OF duty the importer shall pay ON his merch-
dise unless the importer protests within ten days
from such decision. The act provides for no no.
tce to be given to the merchant of such decision,
which is secret proceeding the part OF the Col
lector, and the Court below held that no such no.
tice necessary, and hence the appeal The
facts are as follows IN the year 1864 the firm Of
Westray, Gibbes d Hardcaste imported
cargo OF 'uncleaned rice" from Calcutta
and entered the same in bond, giving the
usual bond to pay the duties due by law on the
same. By statute 'unceaned rice" paid duty OF
two cents per pound, and ''ceaned rice" duty Of
two and one-half cents per pound The importers
in the early part of the year 1856 withdrew all the
rice and paid two cents per pound thereon, and
uuhf nf fha mo tfar In hon
five years thereafter, the firm is sued on this bond
to recover an additional one-half cent per pound
and on the trial learns that the Collector at some
time during the period of five years since the impor
tation had decided the merchandise as cleaned
stead Of two cents the paid. On the trial OF the
cause before Judge Benedict, Mr.. Ethan Allen,
counsel for the firm, offered to prove that the art
Gle 'uncleaned rice. - but the Judge ruled that
no evidence OF this nature could be given, as
protest had been taken within ten days after the
decision OF the Collector, and although IL was ad-
mltted the merchants never had notice OF this
decision 1t was ruled by the Judge he was not
entitled to notice, but, nevertheless, was bound TO
protest or take the consequences.
The case Is clearly stated in the following ex-
tract from the brief OF counsel before the Supreme
Court. He contended that the decision OF the
Collector as TO the rate OF duties TO be paid is a
secret proceeding SO lar as the merchant Is con-
done. The appraiser notes his classification of the
merchandise on the invoice when his convenience
permits, and the clerk OF the Collector, at his own
pleasure, extends in figures on the entrv the
amount of duty, according to this classification,
According to the ruling of the Circuit Court, no
notice whatever need be given to the importer
although from the moment this decision Is made
the ten days begins TO run within which the I'M
porter must file his protest This decision OF the
year. in the night time OF day time, but
when made the importer, without know-
edge notice OF any kind, must from
that moment date the ten days. time within
which he may avail himself OF the benefits OF the
statute. The mere statement OF the case Illus
trateS it's absurdity because or the 1mpossibillty
which 1t imposes upon the merchant. if this be
the law then the law commands an lmpossioiuty-
to wit, it commands the merchant TO know, OF
course by intuition, OF the decision of the Col
lector however secretly tnat decision may be
made. IL cannot be held that such is the intention
or the law As this statute takes away the common
law right OF the citizen to defend himself as In this
case, against an alleged illegal exaction, 1t is
statute and should be interpreted literally
statute Is understood to imply what is absolutely
essential tor its enforcement; and this statute,
fixing, 1t does, period OF time within which
citizen shall avail himself OF defined privilege,
must certainly imply that the citizen shall be given
some knowledge OF the beginning of that period"
bond does not outlaw till the lapse OF twenty
years. The warehouse bonds on file for twenty
years past probably represent 000 000, ,O0o II the
Supreme Court sustain the lower Court then the
Collector at any time may secretly take any or all
these bonds and decide the rate OF duty thereon to
be what he pleases. He may rate tea as stSilkn
cordngly. and when in Court proof is offered OF
the error of the collector the importer is told no
evidence can be admitted, as he has not protested
within days after this decision OF the Collector
The merchant answers he could not protest for he
never had any knowledge OF any such decision
and the Court replies, "You are not entitled to
notice, and If you did not protest 1t Is your
msf0rtune,r and directs Judgment against him.
peared for the government; Mr.. Allen for the de-
iendantS.