Year: 1879

so


decision was rendered by Chief Justice Waite
yesterday in the United States Circuit Court ON the
appeal Of the in the suit of the United
States vs. "House. lot &c. No. Abattoir place.
Frederick Frefrichs claimant and which as test case
involving certain questions Ia OF much i'm
portance. Frefrichs kept vinegar factory ut Abat-
toir place, and with machinery by which 1t was
claimed by the government that he also distilled
spirits Upon this ground the establishment was
seized by the revenue officers. When the suit for
condemnation was tried before Judge Blatchford in
the United States District Court he directed verdict
for the claimant. aud beyond this refused to
give a certificate Of "probable cause to the
Collector thereby rendering him liable for damages.
Upon the result Of this case depended the seizure
OF other vinegar factories throughout the country
and an appeal at once taken by the government.
In the opinion rendered yesterday the decision Of
Judge Blatchford sustained. Chief Justice
Waite says:-"The section Of tho statute under
which the government proceeded is as follows:-
Every person who produces distilled spirits. who
brews makes mash. wort or wash ft for distilla-
ton, or for the production Of spirits. or
who, BY any process OF evaporation separates
who, keeping mash, wort or wash, has also in his
possession or use u still. shall be regarded dis
filler. Now it cannot be seriously contended. con-
tinues the Chief Justice "that the evidence sufi
cent to warrant jury in finding that the claimant
actually produced distilled spirits that he brewed
or made mash, wort or wash at for distiilatlon
or the production OF spirits. or that ne
actually separated alcoholic spirits from any
fermented substance. All that can be insisted upon
by the government is that there was evidence tend
ing prove that he had in his possession or use
STILL and that he kept mash, wort or wash. within
the meaning Of the statute. The still he had in his
possession put for the manufacture OF acetic
%
mash. wort or wash, the mash. wort or wash must
be such will produce spirits on distillation. The
evidence IN this case clearly to the eject that the
substance complained of would not produce dis.
titled spirits. It intended for the lnanufacture
of vinegar and when distilled did not could not
Weld spirits. It had already gone through such
q DR. ocess of fermentation In another place
where a still as to render 1t impossible to con-
vert it, any part of it, into spirits by distillation
any process of evaporation. The process through
which It to be put by the claimant was only for
the purpose OF cleansing it of impurities and thus
fitting 1t for in the manufacture of vinegar 1t
was, in fact weak scetic acid mixed with foreign
be converted into marketable vinegar. One who pro-
duces substance which can be converted into vine-
gar by the use OF smaller quantity Of spirits than
is ordinarily employed is not necessarily distier
of spirits. To become such in law he must actually
produce spirits. keep with the still he
wss wsss 'ma' not 'n the case here. % Had the jury
found from the evidence verdict against
the claimant it would clearly have been the duty OF
the Court ON motion. to set the verdict aside and
grant new trial. Under such circumstances 1t was
not error the Court to direct verdict In favor
l
refusing certificate of probable cause can be re-
versed by the Circuit Court upon writ OF error It
deSce which has been embodied in this bin Of ex-
cepons is not such to satisfy me that any error
was committed in this particular. The Judgment
of the District Court Is affirmed.


ADMIRALTY APPEAL DECISIONS.


Seven decisions were sent in yesterday by Chief
Justice Waite in the appeal suits In admiralty and
writs Of error argued before him recently in the
United States Circuit Court


In the suit of the Erie Railway Company against
the steam ferryboat d. s. Gregory the decision Of
the lower Court Is sustained and decree ordered
for the libellants This was action brought to
cover damages account OF collision on the Hud-
son between the ferryboat Pavona, belonging to the
railway company. and the Gregory on the morning
Of January y. 1873. during q dense fog Justice
Waite holds that tho d. s. Gregory is alone respon
sible for the collision. because she kept her course
and speed without ascertaining how she was to pass
the Pavonia until 1t was too late to avoid damaging
collision.


Chief Justice Waite also sustains the decree of
the Court below in the case of John s. Weekes and
others against the steamer New Orleans. This libel
was brought to recover damages from collision
between the schooner Allie Beckmore. owned by tho
libelants, and the steamer New Orleans on the 9th
of September. 1874 The collision occurred in the
Henlopen. Chief Justice Waite holds that the col
lsion caused solely by the fault OF the New Or
leans not keeping sufficient lookout ana II not
seeing the schooner in time to keep out OF her way
and that the beants entitled to recover for the
amount of their decree below. with interest on
026 from the date OF that decree at the rate OF
six per cent per annum.


The third decision was in the admiralty appeal of
Charles Mcdonnell against the ship Niagara. The
Niagara sailed from the port Of Liverpool for New
York the I'D OF March, 1875, having on board
cargo consisting of fine table salt. soda ash and
arsenic. The sat In sacks and consisted OF two
lots, branded ashton" the other Marshall.
The libellsnt was the owner OF the Ashton brand.
On the 10th and also the Gath OF March the ship
was overtaken by severe storms. and on both occa-
sions q largo number of the arsenic casks slowed
were Knocked off and the arsenic scattered about the
deck. On the arrival OF the steamer at New York
and when the salt was unloaded 1t was found that
many OF the bags covered with white powder
which was subsequently ascertained to be arsenic
The salt discharged aud placed In store. where
fertilizng purposes The loss on the ..Ashton salt
by this sale, 1t agreed between the parties,
amounted at the date OF the decree below to $532s
The Chief Justice decides that the libellant Is
titled the difference between the market
value of the salt according to its original commercial
character the time Of the discharge OF the cargo
and the price realized from the sale for fertilizing
purposes. -


Kirk against the schooner Osseo and OF james T..
Corham against the schooner Sandy Hook, in con-
nection with collision between the two vessels in
Long Island sound March IL, 1875. Chief Justice
Waite decides that both vessels were ut fault tho
damages must be apportioned exactly between the
vessels.


In the appeal in the admiralty suit of James A..
Bouker against the ferryboat Delaware. Justice
Waite renders decree for the libellant This scton
was brought to recover damages for the loss of y
sloop and cargo OF artificial stone owned by the
libelant, through collision with the fcrryboat.


In the suit brought by Raphael Gomez ct al against
the bark Carlotta, the ibellant is awarded decree
for $685. which is applied to settling contra decree
in q cross suit brought by William Bliss against
Raphael Gomez OF al. for xy62 Al


ASSAULT ON SHIPBOARD.


Tho bark Sarah and Emma Of this port arrived
here yesterday from Guantanamo. Cuba. and her
master, j. II. Monroe reported ut the United States
Marshas Office that he had brought one Of the crew.
named Charles Anderson, colored seaman. in irons
for q murderous assault upon one Of his comrades.
! uatnad Adren Eensniark Andernon WAS bronqlt