768
J'JI1DERAL REPORTER ,vol.
41.,
was not necessary that a protest and appeal from the notification of the claim to the importer, whether, ealled a reliquidation or not, should precede." -Which instruction, as asked, was refused. A bill of exceptions was taken to the instru-cfiongiven, and to the refusal to instruct as asked, and the case brought to this court on writ of error. TheadjQdged ,cases are in favor of the ruling of the court below on the and appeal, (seeWestray v. U. S.,18 Wall. 322; U. S. v, SchJ.,e8inger, .120,U. S. 109, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 442;) but it is not to pass upon this in order to sustai'J\thejudgment. On the agreed statement of facts" the go.vernment was entitled to a yer· diet and judgmentj and the questioti whether there had been a protest and appeal was' wholly immaterial. The statute proviqes "that unpol. ished, cylinder, crown, and common window-glass, irilpotted in boxes containing fjjty square feet, as nearly assizes will pernlit, now known arid commercially as fifty feet of glass,.' single thick, and weighinguot to exceed pounds of glass per' box, shall be enteredand computed as fifty pounds onlYj and that said kinds of glass imported in boxes containing; as nearly as sizes will permit, fifty feet of glass, now known and commercially designated as fifty feet of glass, double thick, and 'not exceeding ninety pou'iiqSinweigh t, shall be entered. and 'computed' as eighty pounds of glass onl.Y'j but in all other cases the duty $hall be computed according totneaetual weight of glass." 2.2 St.. U. S. 496. The plain 'language of this 'let requires that the glass imported by. the plaintiff in error, as stated in the·agreed statementof facts; shall be entered and eoru:puted as 50 pounds of glass. It was in boxes.ClQntaining50 square. feet; 'as nearly as ,sizes' will permit, known and 50 feeto.fglass, single thiclt,. and pot to. exce.ed 55 pounds of glass per box. 'The. "but in alr9ther cases the duty to the actual weight ofi glass" refers to cases where boxes of 50 feet of single thick glass weigh over 55· pounds, and where boxes of 50'feet of glass, double thick, weigh over 90 pounds. It isciear that in all boxes taining feet, single thick, 'and weighing not to exceed 55 pounds, must computed on, .a weight of 50 pounds per box. 'rhe juq,gPlent of thedistriet court. will be affirmed, with costs.
KENNEDY
et aZ.v. ,MAGONE. February 7,1890,)'
(Ol'l'eutt Oourt, So D. NeJW
CuSTOMS Dl1TDI8-'ENTRY A.ND ApPllUSAL-ABSDNOB Oll' INvOIOD-14UUNIUND SToRAGB.
Where an inlpOrter ohooses to enter goods of less va!,ue than 11,000 without a car· for cartage to thE! appraiser's stores, and for storage and labor at such stores, may properly be exaoted by the goverbment. (SyZlabUB lY/I,thB 'OO'U'l'to)
KENNEDY". MAGONE.
7H9
This was an action brought against a collector of the. port of New York to recover the sum of 70 cents, exacted for expenses attendant upon the
examination of. goods imported by plaintiffs. In April, 1888, there arrived at the of New York, per steamer Ohio, two packages of guide-books. No one appearing within 24 hours to claim the same, they were sent by the collector of the port to a bonded warehouse in Jersey City. On October 3d plaintiffs applied to the collector for permission to enter said packages without invoice, on the ground that their value was less than $100. An order was thereupon issued for the transfer of said goods to the public stores for examination by the appraisers. Plaintiffs having paid the charges of the owner of the warehouse in Jersey City, the goods were taKen on the public truck to the bUilding at 402 Washington street, New York city, occupied by the appraisers. On examination, the goods were found to be "printed matter" of the value of $15, dutiar ble at 25 per cent. On October 17th plaintiffs received thei!, good$on paynient of $3.75 for duties, and 70 cent:'! for charges and expenses, as follows: Cartage to appraisers' stores, 15 cents on each package; labor at stores, 10 cents on each package; storage one month, 10 cents on each package. The suit was brought to recover these charged, and it was shown that cartage and storage were nev.er exa.cted by the government on goods which were entered on invoice. At the close of the case, defendant's counsel moved to direct a verdict in his favor, on the ground that the charges were justified by section 2926 of the Revised Statutes,; which prQvid'es that "all merChandise, of which incomplete entry has been made, or an entry without the spf!cification of particulars, either for want of, the original invoice, or for any other cause, or which h1l.S received damage during the \foyage, shall be conveyed ,to .somewj).rehouse orstore·house, to'be designated by the in the parcels or packages containing the same, there to remain, with 'due and reasonable care, at the expense and risk of the owner or consignee, under the care of some proper officer, until the particulars, cost, or value, as the case may require, shall ,have been ascertained either hy the exhibition of the thereof or by appraisement, at the option of. the owner, original importer, or consignee, and until the duties thereonshaU have been paid, or secured to be paid, and a permit granted by the collector for the deo.. livery thereof.» Alexander P. I{eU;humand He:nry E. Tremain, for plaintiffs. Edward MitcheU, U. S. Atty., and W. Wickham Smith, Asst.U. S. Atty., for defendant. LACOMBE, J. This case, of course, is to be determined according to its own fElcts, and the law is to be interpreted only so far as it has a bearing upon and connection with those facts. The charges,here complained of were those by which it was made possible and practicable for the appraisers;. in accordance with those provisions of la.w which· require them to dil'lharge their functions in a single building in the city of New York, to so.dis9Qarge those. functions touching these goods. In this instance, they did notdischarge those functions,solely in a scrutiny of'the v.4b.no.13-49 .
J'EDEBAL 'REPORTER;
vol. 41.
whetherbr' not there was an :undervaluation; In this pattieular,oase there was no declared value which they undel.'tookto revise. (The importer was either; Unable or' unwilling to state the value. By Di$:'dWli he'presenteduo invoice, and by not doing so, as was: for defenaAnt,: he saved three:'or four times. the amount oharges by 'not having to pay consular fees in London, Liverpob11l'Glasgow, orwherevet the ,goods came from. He had thus volunta'tily 'l>'Ilt 'himself insl1ch 8' position that it became necessary for hirn;ubder: the law; to 'ask the a$sistanceof the general governmeutto enable" 1ihn to make his own/declaration as to the value of' his goods; I seeM reason WbYI for of:that kind, requested.by him from; the general governmeul,and which he:need not have requested if he had takellthe to providehiniself with lln invoice on the other side, he should, not himself pay. ' Fol" tbat, reason I, shall direct a, verdiet for the d13feildant. ' ' ,
g6ods,
-'I'
, BAuMaARTEli V.:MAGONE, "." ,",'" '
.
'"I
L
OtrS'1'OMS
St1JlJllO'1' orO DuTY....ANTIQUilrIlfs.,' , " mthe free,list otthe tariif act of March 8, 1888. for "cabinets of QO!ns) &ind aU,'other collectIons of, antiquities, .. 'does not cover;antiquities whicn'do ll6tfbrm;acollectIon., '" "': ,', ' A,ND
, ,of lace, product andseVl":lteenth cbuturies, and 'rugs, the,,fltoduct ot,',the s,lXteenth ceiltury, Iml?or,ted Btdiif,erent times as articles of ."..e from 'duty by, Vlrtue of the 'provision ill the free-list , tor" collectJon of antiquities," but are, properly dutiable. ilnder tile provisions in the Btlhedules forlaoesand rugs., "" '" " ' ' 1. ..... \;
S.
RUGS-.OUSSIPIOA'l'ION.
,
,:
At Law. .Action to recover , :In September.. '1887 ,plaintiff imported two curta.ins five coverlets and one rug. :Evidence was given upon the trial tending to show that the' rug bad beei1''Jriaa$ 'in the sixteenth century, and that the ourtains llnd made of pieces oflaoe ,which had beenpl'oducedin the' sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. These articles were assessed fOr duty th6'{jol1ettbt ofthep?rt under the futhe schedules for rug8andla:ces.-: The importer 'claimed them to be free of duty under the provision in the free-list of the act of ,March 3, 1883,fol, "cabinets of coins, medals, and all other collections of antiquities." , Stephen for plaihtiff.' ',,' ',. , "Edward MitaheU;: U;S.Atty.;,-:andW. Wickhn.m'Smith. Asst. U. S.' Atty;) for. defendant. ' , :j
, :'LACOMBE;:J'i" THe paragraph' cjf the free-list upon 'which plaintiff' relied ,is :669(: ["Cabinets ofcoins; medals, and 'aU other collections of antiquitiesl" ,Ii know of no principle of law which will warrant the court in wiping :Out'any"word in/that description which seems to have been: