688
91
FlllDlilRAL REPOJtTER.
debtor to avoid the necessity of further to all creditors in case such an examination is allowed. 0tllyone such examination as reo spects the discharge· should be had; since the statute in re,quiring that all creditors shall have notice of it, presumably intends that all should be equally allowed to participate in it, once for all, And not further h,arass the In re Vogel, 5 N. B. R. 396, 397, Fed. Cas. No, 16,984. For the present examination, if a new notice to all creditors is required through lack notice, the new notices and exam· ination must. be at theexpen$e of the applicants; for which. I allow to the referee for necessary, .clerical aid, as a necessary expense, con· sidering that there are 50 creditors or upwards, $7.50, which the a.ppli· cants should deposit in adv{ulce, as well as'pay the cost of clerical or stenographic aid in taking the testimony on the examination.
UNITED STATES v. LOEB et at
(Circuit Oourt, S. D. New York. January 18, 1899.) No. 2,474. CuSTOMS DUTlES,--CLASSIFIOATION-HEMSTITCHIllD. LAWNS.
Certain hemstitched IawnBhela. to be dutiable as manufactures of cotton not otherwise prOVided for, under paragraph 355 of the act of 1890, and not as "partly made cotton wearing apparel," under paragraph 349.
This was an application by the United States for a review of a decision· of the board of general appraisers in respect to tbeclassi· ftcation for dUty of certain goods imported by Loeb & Schoonfeld. The merchandise consisted ,of certain hemstitched lawns, which were classified for duty by the coUectpr as "partly ma(le cotton wearing apparel," at 50 per cent. ad valorem, under paragraph pf the act of October 1, 1890. 'l'helmporters protested that ,the goods were manufactures of cotton not otherwIse provIded for, dutiable 'at· 40 per cent: "lid valorem, under paragraph '855 of the same act. No eVidence was taken before the board of general appraisers, whIch found and decIded that the merchandIse In question was hemstItched lawns, and sustaIned the claim of the Importers; the board referring to the case In re Mllls, 56 Fed. 820. The government appealed, upon the record as sent up by the board.
James T. Van Rensselaer, Asst. U. S. Atty. W. Wickham Smith, for appellees. WHEELER, District Judge. The classification of these hem· stitched lawns, appealed from, appears to. have been made in accordance with In re Mills, 56 Fed. 820. The protest is criticis.ed as misleading, but as it referred .to the right paragraph, and claimed the correct rate, it appears to have been SUfficient, notwithstanding the alleged misdescriptions of the goods. Decii;lion affirmed.
UNITED STATES V. ROSENSTEIN.
637
WING WO CHUNG v. UNITED STATES. (Circuit Court, S. D. New York. January 19, 1899.1 No. 2,769. CtrsTo:Ms'DuTIES-CLASSIFICATION-DRIED FRUIT- LYCllEE.
The Chinese fruit called "lychee," which consists of a shell dried, but not edible, and an Interior pulp, in. its natural state, which Is edible for children, Is dutiable as a dried fruit, under paragraph 559 of the act of 1897, and is not included among "other edible fruits dried," provided for In paragraph 262.
This was an application by Wing Wo Chung for a review of a decision of the board of general appraisers in respect to the classification for ,duty of certain imported merchandise. The goods in question consisted of dried lychee, invoiced as dried fruits, and were returned by the appraisers as dried fruits, two cents per pound, under paragraph 262 of the act of 1897, as "other edible fruits dried." The importer protested, claiming that the merchandise was free of duty, under paragraph 559 of that act, as fruits ripe or dried. The board of general appraisers found that they were edible fruits dried, and affirmed the collector's decision. ' Howard T. Walden, for appellant. Henry C. Platt, Asst. U. S. Atty. WHEELER, District Judge. This is a Chinese frnit called "lychee," consisting of a shell which is dried, but not edible, and an interior pulp, in its natural state, which is edible for children. The edible part is not dried, and the dried part is not edible. Therefore it does not appear to be an edible dried fruit, which necessarily im· plies that the edible part is itself dry. Decision reversed.
UNITED STATES v. ROSENSTEIN et (CIrcuit Court, S. D. New York. No. 2,770. CusToMs DUTIES-·CLASSIFICATION-RusSIAN SARDINEIl.
at
December 17, 1898.)
Herrings, pickled and spiced, imported In small kegs, and commerelally known as Russian sardines, but which are not commercially known as sardines, and are not sardines In fact, are dutiable, under paragraph 260 of the tariff law of 1897, as "herring, pickled," and not under paragraph 258. as "fish known or labeled as ... ... ... sardines." 1
This was an appeal by the United States from the decision of the board of general appraisers sustaining the protest of Rosenstein Bros. as to the classification of certain imported fish. H. P. Disbecker, Asst. U. S. Atty. Albert Comstock, for importers. to Dennison Mfg. Co. v. U. S'I 18 C. C. A. 5-15. 1
As to Interpretation of commercial and trade terms ID
see note