Year: 1874

In the United States District Court, before Judge
Blatchford, when the case of the United States vs.
Three Trunks, containing kid gloves. was called
yesterday counsel for the claimant, sampson
Levy, stated that he had again to apply TO the
Court Tor a postponement In support OF his mo-
tion he read the affidavit OF the claimant, to the
effect that at the time he imported the goods
he intended to have the goods regu-
Iarly entered, and that without the evidence
OF two witnesses, who were absent, Mr.. Frank
and Mr.. Rowe, 1t would not be safe for him to go
TO trial. He expected that Mr.. Frank would depose
to the conversation that took place between the
claimant and the Custom House oficer on the
dock and Mr. Rowe, who was the roommate OF
the claimant on the voyage, would depose that
there was no secrecy whatever in regard to the
bringing In OF the gloves. An afndavit OF Robert
Levy, brother OF the claimant was also read, to
the effect that his brother was too III TO leave his
house. and that when ne got notice Of trial he
Ing the attendance OF the witnesses, Frank and
Rowe, but he had not been able to do so. One ol
about Christmas. Counsel further said that It ap-
peared to the Court yesterday that The
wa was ao 100 ~ tSa eae n and
referred to were material for the defence. There
was another circumstance to which he thought It
right to call the attention oil the Court and the
Court would give it such weight as it deemed
proper. His Honor knew that there was differ





OF 1899, under which TINS question arises. Where
the goods were landed under the supervision or
was a technical landing that rendered them liable
to forfeiture, no permit having been granted; but
a different view was taken by a Judge in another
district. An appeal was taken before Judge
Woodruff, and the matter was now being argued
before him. and hts opinion would be rendered be-
fore the next term OF the Court. There was no
par tlcuiar reason why the case should be pressed
on for trial now, especially as the questions IN
yolved were pending an appeal IN the Circuit
Court.


Judge Blatchford-Isec no reason for postponlng
the trial.


Mr.. Smith, United States Assistant District At
torney, opened tue case to the jury. He said that
on the Gath Of August the claimant landed at this
port from Liverpool in the steamer CITY Ut Ches-
ter, having with him at that time three trunks
containing Its dozen of kid gloves, silk
good, silk umbrellas, pieces OF CLOTH violin.
pieces Of linen, two satchels four pairs Of shoes
and other articles, all OF which were liable TO pay
duty to the United States. the gloves were liable
sixty per cent ad valorem. Thus the jury could
see what q large amount OF duty was que TO the
government on these articles, the value OF which
was between four and Ave thousand dollars. The
claimant was allowed TO land with three sttchels,
the snip. TIE claimant had not made q
declaration concerning them, and he landed De-
fore any permit was given tor she landing OF the
goods. this was on Sunday. The officer saw
three unclaimed trunks lying on the wharf and
tney were taken INTO the snip's office on the Dock
where, on Monday, they were seized and examined
by the custom House officer, anu found 10 contain
the gloves, &C., inclosed In tin cases. tightly
soidered up Inc claimant soon after claimed the
ment observed that the claimant bad ATTEMPTED
to bribe the onlcers OF the Custom House to allow
the trunks to come IN Tree.


The defence is that there was no intent what
ever to defraud the government; tn at the clam.
ant or his brother produced to the Custom House
offcer papers purportng to be the invoices OF the
goods, and that he intended to pay the duty In a
Fne further hearing Of the case was adjourned
Bill to-day.