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

gress Judicialiy Construed Tor the
First Time-Importan Decision by
Judge Woodruff.
Not long since there was tried before Judge
Woodruff the case OF Sigmund Ulman 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 liquldated on the 1st
OF February, 1871. The plaintiff, on the Goth
or june, 1871, paid the duties demanded,
A previous importation OF the same goods was
entered in December TO- ls7o and the plaintiff paid
the duties at the same rate. He filed protest at
the same time, and attached TO IL the words az
intend this protest to apply TO all future similar
importatIons made by me.' Counsel Tor the PLAIN
tin, Mr.. Sidney Webster, argued that the notice
tice;" that it applied to all like goods imported by
Mr.. Gilman, and came up to the requirements OF
the acts OF Congress which made protest neces-
sary tor the purpose OF emitting the importer to
take an action for the recovery of money erro-
neousy or wrongfully exacted by the collector.
Mr.. Simons Unlted States Assistant District At
torney contended that q prospective protest or
this character, under the act OF 1854 was not suf
hclent and that, therefore, the plantln could not
MANI ain his action.
Judge Woodruff yesterday rendered his decision
on the above question. He holds that the present
case arises under the act OF 1854, the fourteenth
section OF which declares THAT on the entry oil
any vessel or OF any goodsn the 'decision of the
Collector OF 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 shall be final against all persons interested
therein unless the owner'' 'shal, within ten days
after the ascertainment and liquidation OF the
duties, 'give notice, IN writing TO the Collector
on each entry, II dissatisfied with his decision,
setting forth therein distinctly and specifically the
grounds of his objection thereto.n
.Thls act, observes Judge Woodruff "has not
heretofore been under judicial consideration, and
am now called upon for the first time to give an
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
trict do not know; but they are significant WORDS
and by sound rules OF Interpretation / must
assume that they have a meaning. and that Con-
gress intended that meaning Ny conclusion, that
under the act OF 1864 such prospective or con-
tnung protests as to future Inportations are not
valid and effective, 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 a verdict Tor the deiendant.n
The Rights of Citizens in Times of
Wharf.-The Case of Britton VS.. General
Benjamin f. Butier-Judg ment for the
Defendant.
Yesterday Judge Woodruff delivered his opinion
in the case OF William A. Britton vs. General Ben
jamin F. Butler. The particulars OF this case have
been recently fully reported in the HERALD. 1t
appeared that when General Butler was in com
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 were found checks to the
amount of about $4,000, which were drawn by
1irm IN NatcheZ, Miss, upon house IN New Or
leans. The checks were seized by order OF General
Butler, and the amount OF them, which he received
at the CltiLens Bank, was turned over TO the
government. The defendant brought suit against
the General TO recover the amount of the drafts
"A th4ti m
what he did in regard to the checks in question he
was protected by the war procamatIons OF the
President aud by the operation OF martial law then
IN existence. Judge Woodruff, In his decision
says that 1t Is not claimed in this case that the
firm OF William A. Britton Il Co., OF Natchez had
any special deposit in the Citizens Bank of New
Orleans which could be Identified az their money
AT most, II any money received by that bank stood
to their credit as deposit subject to draft In the
ordinary course OF business that made them
creditors OF tue pank and the bank their debtors. 1t
was conceded, on the trial, that in April 1861, the
firm OF w. A. Britton Co., then composed OF the
paintG and Audey c. Britton and G. W. Koontz
was dissolved by war and the departure of tue
plant TIL rom Natchez then within the territory of
the rebels, the other two Of the partners still re-
naming at Natchez. The check mentioned IN the
pleadings was drawn, not on the pantin out by
his said former partners at Natcnez, and for the
purpose OF avaling themselves within rebel terri
tory Of money or credit which they had with the
said bank. H. as the paintn insists, such receipt
OF the money was without authority right, and
1t be conceded that the plantin can, as matter OF
law, treat the money thus received by
the defendant as his identical money,
received by the defendant to the plain
uns use, then the act Of the defendant
was plainly wrong done by the defendant by vir-
tue and under color Of his authority Major GEN
eral OF the United stats assigned 10 the command
OF the forces al New Orleans, within section Z, OF
the act OF March 1861 and as such is within the
limitation OF two years, within which alter such
wrong the action should have been brought. The
plalntln cannot by the mere form OF his action do
away with the statute which was intended to pro-
tect the officers Of the government against suits
or actions Ia any form for the alleged wrong un-
lens brought within the time limited. The action
was not commenced until June O. 1865. Judgment
must be directed for the defendant The District
Attorney and Mr. John H. Devlin ior the de-
till. " ~ p
Action Upon n DistiIIer's Bond-An Oh
stinate Juror.
Before Judge Woodruff
ihe united states Vs. Charles Deylin-Tbe
United States brought an action against Mr. Devlin
upon distiler's bond, executed by Mr.. Devlin as
one OF the suretes, In October, 1868. The proof OF
the formal execution OF the bond and that the prin
cfpa 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
h1