New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-11-06
los. of the afternoons trade may n.o Se charged to the

THE SUIT AGAINST II. B. CLAFLIN 81, co.
DECISION or JUDGE BENEDICT on THE MOTION TO
QUASI TIK WORCESTERSHIRE FIRST THREE
COUNTS SUSTAINED A$D THE FOURTH QUAsHED
In the case of II. b. Claflin g. Co., indicted
for buying selling. and facilitating the conceanept ana
transportation OF smugged silks. motion was made 10
quash the indictments the ground that they did not
describe the alleged oense with sufficient particularly
Argument on the motion had, about two weeks ago.
IN the United States Circuit Court before Judge Beno
dict Nit. Evarts appearing for H. b. Clahin Co, ana
Assistant United States DsrictAttorney Foster Tor the
Government Judge Benedict reserved his decision until
yesterday whom ne gave one quashing the fourth count
in tho Indictment and sustaining the other three counts
There are four indictments against IT, b. Clsilin IL Co.,
hut us the same objections apply to all OF them only one
was made the direct subject of the motion toquash The
following are the main points of Judge Benedicts de-
cisiOn
The provision law under which the defendants are
charged is srcon Of the act ~ July 49, 1866 repro
dnsd in section 1882 Of the Revised Statutes OF the
United STATES rs follows: II any person shall ialidu,
lcnty or knowingly import or bring into the United
states or assist in doing any merchandise contrary tn
Jaw. sall receive conceal buy, sol or IN amy manner
sne ndise after importation, knowing the same
II have been imported contrary to law the oneier
rmoanor The Indictment contains four counts In the
fret, the charge that OF conoeshs IN tne sScVnu,
facilitating tine transportation III the Third that
OF facilitating the sale oil certain merch1hdse. ihese
three counts similar In form and the objections to he
considered apply TO each The fourth count is
lifrreni aud viii be considered hy itself The fist OBJ
ircton Which examine is that the goods forming tho
subject of the transaction charged are not sufficiently
Identified Tie language used 10 identity the g0Ots Is as
follows: CerIain goods, wares and merchandise to
Wit iar. qua thy OF silk goods 20 wit six cases CON
tanning eilx goods OF the value OF 93OOOO, more par
fc,Ii.r Inscription of which ia to the Jurors Unknown
Tner is uso TIE additional statement That the goods
were dutiable goods. introduced mo THIS port nom
Te rules BY which the suicency OF sn indictment Is
10 determined have been too often stated to require
re,cftiop Inese rdles they have been understood
ald applied in the aiindcated cases. are to be applied
Their operation cannot Do extended because OF
any embarrassment under which thess defendants lie
because the great extent OF their business JunXti
nls the sciition under consideration will be iound
sufficient Plainly the language used snows the su9ect
OF be wl:nu enc scope Of the statute
treating oicse, Tor ne statute In terms includes all
kinds merchandise Ii Is also clear that tr deScl
tOn the Indictment, together with stch evidence as
future prosecution for tie same al nsc ~ Is not he"
s,ry .sciDe property win such particularly as WIZ
OBJ late all necessity for proof outside me IeG0ru
SAYS tie Court in Rex again,t Mansaed II {.
aud Z. iiOl There must be some parole evidence
ali SHOW Susi II was that no Was tile Tor De
ore 10 require the various species oi SIX goods
or the est OF tine prosecution upon question OF vari
ance 10 demand tine statement III the IN hotheht oil
Dass Ia consider The next O.cctUn tnat the iogly IN
be Importation THESE cases is not properly STATED In
support OF this objection te PROPOSITION u ndYanceu
tlat an Indictment Tor OIyIng goods which have bcon
brought INTO e United states contrary IA law, must SCI
ont The oh.nse committed IN the original importation
win tho same particularly OF time. place, ami c1i-
cuInsiance tuat would De required III an Indictment
an
ma ntaiiied. Ine oense ot khoNmgy huyins snufgied
o. - similar cHara,t ct Ia t.at Of receiving stolen
Foods 20 much II hDs been conceded ttt tne
Tue sppllpd indictments .Or receiving stolen 6oodS
may be properly applied this Indictment. TIC coli
rpssjuu is fatal objection under cCnsldtIatICn
4 neAt consider the position taken tLat the III
dictIncnt c .Ou shOnid moi only CONNIE Ia" charge
10 ceHl NJ sugScd VOur, but also sHonid state iac's
frou wnie the Ovpt can dec mine sucii 10 nave hee
tie character OF the importation referred TO-
Ilr word "smugSci" Is tccunical word having "a
Known and accepicd meaning in bad sense IL implies
sOlehms ga, and Is iuGOnsstcns VITA any lnhoceh'
intNu.s. y
nave now considered objections urged against the
frs tnrcs. Jnc' ueut. II remain. 10 con
.id,r the and count This coun Is lAcw'e
,sei upon section OF the Act OF 1866 ihe drcienco
hctueeu IA ami the oGer counts is that Of assigning the
egaiity ui tnc Original importation: uses Simply tue
vvis oi si.the, ayeTring Ony that tue goods hau
su import-u ugV tho Unitcd STATES contrary ~ law
n ftc A,l of 1856 conhned in opera ion u single
form OF 1rgaliLy might Do questioned whether count
ike tuiS M u Indictment n secondary ohen5o wUiud
NOT be supported by the at1Oi1ues arrady reietrtu 10
Aud certainty weigh: IN tao argument
derived from the repeal provisions OF section
40 of tho Act Of 1S42 . Ii would seem
NAT tue iiegalIy sHOdld be designated VIVA
more ntrlieusfIiy than afforded by the words
imported contrary to law" when The language Oi
statute compfenenis, under general terms diNess forms
OF ogai.ty having different earacieristcs, Al NAV vel
be considered proper Ia require Sootlis more t1al tac
~ tnS s,htuit.
For THESE reasons. and because such count has d
uoa TINS been cOn0eHuec IN fcIOrted
case la fniA Circuit. te opinion that tie IouTtn
count oi lis should be rejected bIy deter
IN NATION upon tis motion, tLcpfOre Is .i the iourth
count Indictment quaslied, and lis 10 tno otner
csInts tue motion II denied