The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-04-30


tion-The Duty on Moussclinc De-
LANES.
Before Judge Smalley and a Jury.
In the United states Circuit Court yesterday, be-
fore Judge Smalley and jury, the case OF Benja-
min II. Hutton vs. Augustus Schell, eX-COllector of
this port, was brought on for trial. 1t was an ac-
ton to recover an excess OF duty. In 1857, and
rom that time up to 1861 or 1862. the firm OF
Bernhard Il Hutton and other large importing
houses in this city imported from France worsted
articles, composed entirely of worsted and known
commercially as mousseline delaine, and were
compelled by the Collector, under the Tariff
act to pay duty OF twenty-four per
cent They protested, claiming that the
word ''delainen sgnined cotton and
worsted article mixed, which was made ex-
cusivey in England and the United States, and
not at all In France. They claim, moreover, That
ture wholly or in part Of cotton, the idea or
mousseline delaine being an all worsted article
Sy s IN o.
OF the act OF March 8, 1857 provides that all manu-
features composed wholly OF cotton, which are
bleached, printed painted or dyed, and delanes
shall be transferred to schedule c OF the act Of
June 80, 1916, which says that the articles emu
merated In that schedule shall pay duty OF
twenty-iour per cent. On the importatons OF the
mousseline delalnes from France made by Bernhard
Hutton the Collector, Mr.. Schell, levied duty OF
twenty-four per cent, on the ground that they
were classed among and included In the deaines
referred to as transferred to schedule Q. In sched-
ule OF the act of June 80, 1876, it is stated that
''manufactures OF wOrsted, or or which Worsted
shall be material not otherwise provided for"
shall pay duty OF nineteen per cent. AS already
stated the plaintiffs paid the duty at twenty-four
per cent, and then instituted suit to recover the
excess, which amounts altogether to about sew
enty-fve thousand dollars. The plaintiffs claim
emousseline delaine, being manufacture oiworsted
mot otherwise provided for, should be subject to
duty OF nineteen per cent, as specified in sched-
ule OF the act OF June 80 1S46, as modified by Sec
ton l Of the act OF 1857.
SO far back as 1860 this case was tried in the
United States Circuit Court Mr. Charles O'COnOr
and Mr.. Charles Hunt being counsel for the govern
ment, and Mr.. William NJ. Evarts and Mr. A. w.
Griswold Tor the plaintiffs There was no verdict
that occasion, the jury having disagreed. Eleven
jurors were tor finding for the plaintiffs and one
for the government The case has thus remained
about twelve years on the calendar until 1t was
taken up for the second time yesterday, before
Judge Smalley and jury. Mr.. William M. Evarts,
Mr.. A. w. Griswold and MI. George S. Sedgwick APP
peared as counsel for the plaintiffs, and Mr.. Simons
and Mr. Tremain for the government The real
question at issue is whether this article OF mousse
line deaine, being an all worsted article, is covered
by the description OF delane in the tari of 1857
or whether 1t is covered by subsequent msdifca-
ton OF that act, as manufacture OF worsted mot
otherwise provided for,n and subject to a duty OF
nineteen per cent The case is still at hearing, and
will probably occupy several days.