Year: 1879

decision was rendered yesterday in the case of
the United States against the York Street Flax Spin
ming Company of Belfast, Ireland. by Chief Justice
Waite, In the United States Circuit Court. The suit
brought to 100000 in gold the value of
certain importations Of linens, claimed to have
forfeited to the government on account of alleged
frauds and the non-payment of duties, by means Of
false invoices. The first tried before Judge
Blatchford in 1876, when verdict directed for
the defendants An appeal was taken by the govern
ment and argued before Justice Waite in June last.
Aside the large amount at stake in this suit it
is regarded very important test suit involving
questions that affect other large mportations and
for this the opinion Of Justice Waite is given
below in full -


.'This suit to the value of certain goods
alleged to have been forfeited to the United States.
After the close of the testimony the part of the
government the defendant asked the Court to in
sruct the jury to bring in verdict for the defend
ant on the ground that of the acts charged in
the declaration of the forfeiture had been
proven. This denied. and the defendant then
asked for verdict. because proof had been made
of the value Of the goods such value being the
statutory basis of recovery The Court thereupon
ruled that the value of tho goods. which must be
taken as the basis of recovery. was the same which
the defendant received for the identical goods
covered by the entries and invoices in the suit in
this country. the goods having passed into con-
sumption. which sum, in the hands of the de-
and then. the evidence. it stood,
directed a verdict for the defendants. Many
requests to charge are presented on behalf OF the
government. which are refused, but as they in
tended to break the force of this ruling it Will not be
necessary to refer to them in detail The entire tes
timony is not contained in the bill of exceptions,
and under the ruling OF the Court upon the first mo-
ton for verdict must assume that as far as the
acts forfeiture concerned there evidence
sufficient to make it obligatory to the Court to sub
NIT the to the jury. IT, then, there error in
the ruling of the Court on tho second motion must
reverse the judgment Notwithstanding any doubt
may have on the rs it is presented here about


the propriety OF subectng the defendants to another
evidence established the fact that the goods have
gone into consumption as that seems to have been
has based its Filings. The question as it
comes here for determination is not whether
the value Of the goods at the time Of importation or
when they sold or entered into consumption or
when the suit commenced, is the proper basis
of recovery. bnt whether the government is bound
accept under it's election to take the value, what
the fraudulent importer himself got for them when
they passed out of his hands. know it is settled
that when provision is made by statute for for
feiture of goods their value the title to the goods
remains in the original owner until the government
elects whether to demand the goods or their value
and that ii before the election is made the goods
sold to bona fde purchaser the title passes by the
sale. and the right of the government to proceed
driven to its suit against the wrongdoer. not for
what he has in place of tho goods. but
for their value. 1t contended upon the
agreement that there was evidence which
the jury could properly consider tending
prove the value OF the goods in this country 1t
appeared that tho particular style of goods in ques
ton principally manufactured in Belfast and
that the trade in the United States was almost ex
clusively supplied from there also evidence to
that this defendant supposed the market value
was in New York. exclusive OF duties and charges Of
transportation. the same as in Belfast. The legal
presumption growing out of the evidence was as
think, sufficient to place the burden the defend.
ant Of showing that the market value in New York
was less than indicated For the single error i'll
respect the rule for extending the basis of value
the judgment is reversed and the remanded tor
o new trial."


In the argument on appeal the case was argued by
Assistant District Attorney G. p. L. Butler the
government and Joseph II. Choate for the defence.