National Republican., 1883-11-06
TIE SUPREME COURT.
Tho Business Transacted Ycstcrlay-Do-
cIstons Rendered.

CtstOns Rendered.
The proceedings of the United States SUI
premc court yesterday were rs follows: Ad-
missions to the bar--Francis G. Nowlands of
San Francisco, Cali Richard l. Campbell, of
Pensacola, Fla; Zcra Snow, of Salt Lake
City, Utah, and William Reed Mills, Of Now
Orleans, la,
No 81. Tho Good Intont Tow Boat com
pany ct AL appellants, VS.. the Atlantic Mutual
Insurance company ct nj. Appeal from the
United States circuit court for tho district of
Louisiana; decree affirmed with costs aud
cause romandcd to the United States circuit
court for eastern district of Louisiana.
No. 0SG The Atlantic Mutual Insurance
company ct al, appellants, VS.. the Good Intent
Tow Boat company ct nj. Appeal from tho
United States circuit court for tho district of
Louisiana; appeal dismissed with costs and
cause remandGd to the United States circuit
court for tho eastern district of Louisiana
Opinions by Mr.. Justice lntchtord.
No. 7S. Tho Double Pointed Tack company
appellant, VS.. The Two Rivers Manufacturing
company ct al. Appeal from the circuit court
of the United States for the castorn district Of
| Wisconsin. This was u suit for alleged in-
| fringement of patent in II compound staple
/ fastening for bales. yrbe court holds that the
! first claim of the patent did not describe u
patentable invention, and the second claim
] did not set forth q patcntabo combination,
of the circuit court must be affirmed, with
| costs. Opinion by Justice Blatchford
No. 63. Tho Manhattan Life Insurance
company, plaintiff in error, VS.. John G..
BroughtOn, trustee. In error to the circuit
court of the United States for the southern
district of New York. This was a suit upon
Il policy of insurance on the life of Israel Fer
guson. The defense set up by the company
in the circuit court was, first, that the court
had no jurisdiction second, that the same is
sues had been previously tried and decided in
favor of tho company in state court, and
that the Judgment was n bar to this action
that it was expressly provided in the
policy of insurance that if the assured should
die by suicide, the policy should be null and
void, and the assured did die In that way
hanging himself in Central park, New York,
April IL, 1876.
This court holds first, that the circuit
court had jurisdiction second, that a judg-
mcnt Of nOn-suit is no bar to q new action,
aud of no weight as evidence at the trial OF
that action, and third, that self killing by
an insane person understanding the physical
nature and consequences of his act but not its
moral aspect, is not death by suicide within
the meaning of condition IN policy of in
suIance upon his life, that the policy shall be
void in case he shall die by suicide. The
judgment Of the circuit court is affirmed with
costs and interest, Opinion by Justice Gray.
No. AZ. G.. A. Arthur, collector plaintiff in
error, VS.. Henry Pastor ct Ill. In error to the
circuit court of the United States for the
southern district of New York. Tho contro-
versy in this case relates TO the proper duty
on washed WOOL imported in 1876.
The collector, in accordance with his con-
: struction Of title 50, of the revised statutes,
schedule l., exacted duty as follows On 3,29l
pounds at 20 cents per pound, S65SSO; on
Sl,G27 dts value washcd) at ~ per cent,
S35h9i. Total, S1,0l6I.
-. a., n. - a
pounds, at 20 cents per pound S65S.SO; on
SSl350 (unwashed yaluo), at % per cent,
$17S.97. Total, $53I77.
This court holds that the importers under
standing of the law is correct, and that the
collector erred in apparently assuming that
the same number OF pounds of unwashed
wool would be worth rs much as washed
wool, a snpposition inconsistent with the fact
as admitted and with tho evident meaning of
the law. The law declares that the duty
upon given quantity Of washed wool shall
be twice the amount of duty to which it
would be subjected if imported unwashed.
If the rule adopted by the collector
ad valorem duty on 100 pounds
Of washed wool would be four times rs great
as that upon 100 pounds of unwashcd wool,
for the duty would not only be doubled but
would be assefseds dsumnT double the value of
the wool in its unwashed condition. This is
contrary TO tho plain intent of the law. The
judgment of the circuit court in favor of the
importer is affirmed, with costs. Opinion by
Justice Matthews. The provision of the old
tariff to which construction is given in the
above case remains unchanged in the new
liarih, so that the decision has present and
prospective as we'll as retrospective effect
No. 76, Henry Newman, plaintiff in error.
VS.. G. A. Arthur, collector In error to the
circuit court of the United States for the
southern district of New York. This is an
other customs case, and the question involved
is the proper rate of duty upon cotton cloth
known rs "cOtton Italians" which is extern
siyoly used for coat Innings. The collector
eXacted duty ut the rate of 5! cents per square
yard and 2Oper cent. nd valorem under clause
3, of schedule A (section 1904 revised stat
utes). The importer maintained that the
goods should pay only 80 per cent. ad valorem
as manufactures of cotton not otherwise
provided for"
4 -