New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-04-10
THE COURTS.
TWO CUsTOM-HOUsE SUITS.

A SUIT BROUGHT IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
AGAINST THOMAS MURPHY 10 RECOVER AN Ex-
CESS OF DUTY.
The iron case Of Lcng & Ogden agt. ii. A.
smytbe Collector OF this port reported In Thusdsya
TRIBUNE having been decided On mere technicahty IN
favor of the defendant, Ieng ogden determined toty
on its merits Of like character, excepting
the technically referred to- against Thomas Murphy as
Collector a this port. 1t yesterday In the
United States Circuit Court before Judge woodruff and
the facts IN IL follows; In 1870 the planbns in
ported quantity oiiron strips" cut and punched" ana
ready after bringing The ends together and rVenns
them, to DO used Tor hopping barrels section 80 ofthe
act OF June so, 1854, after mentioning sew
eral kinds OF iron, among which IL
not the kind imported by the plaintiffs, says
that all manufactures OF Iron not otherwise provided
for shall pay duty % IS per cent al valorem. the
plaintiff, claimed that the iron question manu-
facture OF mot otherwise provided for" and duty
paid it at the rate OF IS per cent ad vaiorem
Section OF the SAYS that all band hoop.
and scroll ron from half TO six inches wide, under
oneeighth Of inch in thickness, and not thinner than
No 20 wire gauge shall pay duty OF II cents per
pound Some time after the payment OF the 50 per Gems
al vaorem duty, Collector Murphy claimed that THO
iron came within Section $780, and was therefore suDecs
to an additional duty OF II cents per pound. which was
demanded, paid under protest and an action bronght
to recover it, Tie question to be decided fs.
Are strips OF iron, "cut and punched" and
ready to DO shaped into hoops, mannfac-
lures OF iron" within meaning OF Section 352 or are
they band and hoop iron mentioned IN secLlOb ot
upon the futthcr query, Nnelhef
the kind Of iron imported by the plaintiffs Was known
commercially. prior TO 1864 as hoop IRON or cat iron
hOOps1 Whitney x Belts IOr the pam ms, ana ASSIST
ant United States Distret-At0mey Tremain for me he
lendant Only about 600 are involved IN tins parea,
lar case yet IL is test case, II practically involves
many thousands OF dollars ana Is regarded Win great
by importers of lron BECAUSE IL Is ~
OF the COmpianaDs, almost every one Vi the MIA
bring to an excess Of duty pad under
lihe circumstances.
In December 1871, James Leaby imported quantity
of silk goods upon which duty amounted 10 1914 80.
gold He made out the proper entries aud gave tho
money TO his brokers' kmmer Co., ana directed lhein
20 20 TO the CustOLl-house ana pay IT, ABOUT year
an invoice correctly stating the value OF the six Ia
question found but no entry OF SOOds OF
ing value could be found There was discovered now
over OF goods Of the same marx ana nunor a.
the silk but stating a which the duy dHipuuted
20 only $43 go gold which, by the Cusom-hOu-e DOCKS
appeared been paid No record OF the payDe
OF the s9i4 SO was found Under slcn Ii1eu1, anoes
between SPA so and si3 81, claiming that "
was duo balance OF duty on tbo
silk. The theory OF tho prosecution was that
fraudulent entry had been substituted for the proper
one. the yesterday Tor tflal IN tue ohio
States District Court, before Judge Blatchford No
proof Of the alleged substituted fraudulen entry when
was produced " court was made and the Judge "onia
not allow IL to be offered III evidence lie held ho"
ever that upon the defendant 10 show that
he had paid the proper DUTY on the siih.
Custom house. and that some time aiter"ard they re-
ceiyed permits properly checked 10 remove lho SIM ~
also appeared that the Cust0-n0use Cashier ds Upon
the invoice the usual checks showing payment OF uues,
but the Judge ruled thatathOse checks were not pma
flcte evidence OF the payment OF the duties calcGiao
upon data furnished by the Invoice Inc case VIII DO
ney f. Ii. Smith for the Government, aud Stanley.
Brown & Clarke for the defendant.