Court Opinion

ID: 9417548
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 20:24:28.86347+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:45.758264
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Blatchford
delivered the opinion of the court.
This case involves the same question as that presented in No. 1441, Seeberger v. Farwell, ante, p. 608, just decided.
It is an action brought by Edward Luckemeyer and others, composing the firm of Luckemeyer; Schefer & Co., against Daniel Magone, collector of customs of the port of New York, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, and removed by the defendant into the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, to recover an alleged excess of duties, paid under protest in December, 1887, on like goods with those involved in No. 1441. It was tried by a jury, which found a verdict for the plaintiffs, on which they had a judgment, including costs, for $291.33. The defendant sued out a writ of error.
The percentage of cotton in the goods varied from 1.99 to 4.47. The cotton was introduced into the warp of the fabric prior to the spinning process. The filling was entirely of wool. The warp consisted of woollen and cotton fibres twisted together, but no separate, single, distinct, continuous thread of cotton existed therein. • The selvedges of the goods were formed from the' warp threads, drawn together in a dent, and were composed of. wool and cotton in the same combination *613and extent as the warp. In appearance, texture, quality, and use, the goods were indistinguishable from women’s' dress goods composed wholly of wool, and the cotton in them could be discovered only by chemical analysis. The original purpose of introducing the cotton into the warp was to change the classification of the goods. A report of the case is found in 38 Fed.Eep. 30.
The defendant moved that a verdict be directed for him, on the ground that the selvedges of the goods were made wholly or in part of other materials than wool, introduced for the purpose of changing the classification; and on the further ground that threads of other materials were introduced into the goods for the purpose of changing the classification, the warp being a compound thread composed of wool and cotton; and on the further ground that the goods were substantially composed of-wool, the cotton being an insignificant part of them and not sufficient to take them out of the class of dress goods composed wholly of wool, dutiable under Schedule K at nine cents , per square yard and 40 per centum ad valorem. These several motions were denied by the court and the defendant excepted to each denial.
The court instructed the jury that a mixed-material thread, of which the principal part was wool, was not a thread of other material, within the meaning of the statute, to which instruction the defendant excepted. It submitted to the ■ jury the question whether-threads of other materials had been introduced for the purpose of changing the classification. It further instructed the jury to inquire Whether there' had been introduced into the goods threads of material other than wool or worsted, “ that is, thread or threads of other material, not composition or compound thread composed of wool and other materials, but a thread standing by itself, of material other than wool.” To this instruction the defendant excepted. It further instructed the jury that the plaintiffs were not prohib-' ited from so manufacturing goods as to conform to a lower rather than a higher exaction of the tariff; and that though they might have adopted a very technical- device to escape the higher rate, the question presented by the case was only *614whether their goods were embraced within the higher -rate, and not whether they had evaded the law. To this instruction the defendant excepted.
The defendant requested the court to charge the jury that, if they found that the selvedges of the goods were made wholly or in part of cotton, introduced for the purpose of changing the classification, there should be a verdict for the defendant. The court refused so to charge, and the defendant excepted. He further requested the court to charge, that if the jury found that the goods were women’s dress goods substantially composed of wool, and known in trade and commerce as all-wool fabrics, the defendant was entitled to a verdict. The court refused so to charge, and the defendant excepted. He also requested the court to charge, that if the jury found that the quantity of cotton introduced into the goods was so insignificant as not to alter the character of the goods and remove them from the category of all-wool dress goods, as known in trade and commerce, the defendant was entitled to a verdict. The court refused so to charge, and the defendant excepted.
The views announced by us in deciding No. 1441 control the present case.
It is assigned for error, that the court sustained the objection to a question put by the defendant to a witness, as to Avhether the goods in question Avere bought and sold in this country as all-Avool goods. The objection was made on the ground that the question was irrelevant. We think that the question was properly excluded.

Judgment affirmed.