Court Opinion

ID: 8770116
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-26 12:40:11.414675+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:02:09.619870
License: Public Domain

HOLT, District Judge.
It is obvious that tbe Instrument in question is not one which can be effectively used for most of the purposes for which an ordinary pocket-knife is used. Still no one would deny that it is" a knife. I think few people would term it a toy. The evidence does not‘satisfy me that it is commercially known as a toy, or is in fact used by children ás a plaything, which is the real test of *995what is a toy. My opinion is that it would be more proper to classify it as a manufacture of metal than as a knife or a toy, in which case, as suggested in the General Appraisers’ decision, the duty would be still higher. But the only question on this appeal is whether it should be assessed as a toy, instead of as a knife, and in my opinion its assessment as a knife is more nearly correct than its assessment as ,a toy. .
The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is therefore affirmed.