The New York herald., 1876-10-03

UNITED SIAIEO COIhEME SOCnAs
ovERcHARaE OF DUTIEs--NoTIcK OF PROTEST.
UNDER THE ACT OF 1645, III MADE BEFORE
PAYMENT OF DUTIES, SUFFICIENT.
WASHINGTON, Oct 2. 1875
No 2o7 Hiram Barney Collector Of the port Of
New York, plaintiff IN error, vs. William Watson h
william G. Towney--In error to tho Circuit Court for
the Southern district Of New York.-This suit was
brought by the defendants in against the Colec
tor OF Customs New York recover certain duties
alleged 10 have been overchargcd upon certain goods
imported In December. 1868 The plaintiffs claimed
that they wero channels" duabe at only thirty live
per cent ad valorcm. The Collector held them TO be.
long 10 particular class OF goods which We're subject
TO an additional specific duty OF eighteen per
pound As the quany OF goods was ,9S4 pounds the
difference 81, 437 IL For this amount with interest,"
were part oi large invoice entered on December "a
1885, on which day the sum Of SSo4O W was PAID on
rsrt Of March 1854 When an ADDITIONAL sun q
Il, lso II demanded TO this the plaintiffs do.
INJURED, as u was based on tho aforesaid charge OF
eighteen per pound addition to the nd val0rem
duty the goods question. The questions arising
at the trial to The character and dutabisy Of
tue goods referred to and tho evidence proper
| TO decide tho same are not OF suti-
| c,ent importance 10 demand special consideration.
the principal question bclow that which has bccn
most discussed 10 this Court is whether the pains
gave timely aud sufficient notice OF protest and dissat
with the decision OF the Collector No objec-
| tion was made until the additional amount was de-
| mnndcd, in March, 1854 The import entry was In
| dorscd with the following memorandum :-.laqui-
dated and notified importer March IL 1864" The ad.
dltiona duty paid aud formal protest In writ
| ing served by the plaintiffs GU the 24th
/ ol March. 1864 In tho meantime the importers had
appealed ~ the Secretary tho Treasury and had
his decison dated the 2lst OF March, affirming
that OF the Collector The defendant insisted that the
protest too late, that u should have been made
within days from the entry OF tho liquidation
the in.port entry. But the Court allowed tho PLAIN
t,ds 10 prove that the liquidation really competed
| before the 1lth OF March, and tDat within days
alter its completion written potice OF
| different from the former protest, given TO- the
| Collector To this the defendant excepted The Jury
rendered q verdict ior s., ,S5 II. being the whole
| amount demanded, with interest.
Ii Is assumed in the argument, and seems 70 have
been assumed the trial. that the case was governed
by the OF March 8 1857 III Stat, 1851 by the frh
section OF which II provided:'That the entry
| OF any goods wares and merchandise imported AMI
alter the lst day o July aforesaid the decision OF the
Collector Of tho Customs at the port Of importation
and entry their liability 10 duty or exemption
| therefrom shall he hral and conclusive against
| tho owner importer. consignes or agent OF any
such goods, wares and merchandise, unless tns
owner importer consgnce agent shall within ten
days alter such entry. gvc notice to the Collector IN
writing OF hts dissatisfaction with such decision,
setting forth theren distinctly and specifically, h
grounds Of objection thereto and shall within thirty
days after the date OF such decision appeal tncrefrcm
to the Secretary Of the Treasury, whose decision
such appeal shall be final and conclusye and tho said
goods wares and merchandise shall be liable
any ac. Of Congress 70 tho contrary not.
withstandiug, unless suit should bo brought
within thirty days alter sucn decision i0r any uutes
that may have been paid may thereafter be paid
said goods, within thirty days alter the duties shall
have been paid, in cases wnerc such goods shall be In
bond. Tho conclusion Is that the act Of 1857 has
application to the case but that Is governed by the
February 26 lS45, which restored the right Of
action upon protest and which not repealed until
1864 AS part OF the amount claimed the protest
was provided by the act OF lS45 But tho
covery was Tor nearly double the amount SO protected
by act anu the there In the
instruction OF the Court Reversed
Mr.. Justice Bradley delivered the opinion Of the
Court