Case Name: BARRETT v. UNITED STATES
Court: United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1902-02-03
Citations: 115 F. 206
Docket Number: No. 2,621
Parties: BARRETT v. UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 115
Pages: 206–207

Head Matter:
BARRETT v. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
February 3, 1902.)
No. 2,621.
Customs Duties — Performing Horses and Dogs.
Decision of the board of general appraisers sustaining the collector In refusing to admit performing horses and dogs free, under paragraph 686 of the tariff act of 1890, as “tools of trade,” must be affirmed, where the only evidence that the animals were in the actual possession of the importer at the time of importation consists of a vague statement of the broker’s clerk that the importer came directly to the broker’s office on the arrival of the vessel, though he did not know whether he came on the same vessel with the animals or not, and the importer fails to produce further evidence, though given an opportunity to do so by the board.
Appeal by the Importer from a Decision of the Board of General Appraisers, which sustained the action of the collector in the assessment of duty upon the importations in question.
Albert Comstock, for importer.
Henry C. Platt, Asst. U. S. Atty.

Opinion:
TOWNSEND, District Judge.
In April, 1894, the appellant entered certain performing horses and dogs, claiming that they were free, under paragraph 686 of the tariff act of 1890, as "tools of trade." The only evidence that the animals were in the actual possession of the importer at the time of importation consists of a vague statement by the broker's clerk that the appellant came directly to the broker's office on the arrival of the Denmark, although he did not know whether he came on the same vessel with the animals or not. The board of general appraisers deferred the decision of the case until June 8, 1897, in order to give the protestant an opportunity to be heard, but no further evidence was offered, and the board thereupon affirmed the assessment of duty. In the absence of any sufficient or satisfactory reason for the failure to produce such evidence, this court would not be justified in overruling the decision of the board of general appraisers upon mere inference, and their decision is therefore affirmed.