(Oircuie ()ourl, N. D. IUinoi,. January 22, 1884.)
Stearine is not to be classed as "tallow," but as a '. manufacture of tallow," and as such is subject to a duty of 26 per cent.
BLODGETT, J. In February, 1882, the plaintiffs imported two invoices of merchandise, entered as "tallow" and dutiable under schedule M of section 2504 of the Revised Statutes. The article so entered as "tallow" was classed by the inspector as "a manufacture of tallow" under section 2516, and charged a duty at the rate of 20 per cent. ad valorem. The plaintiffs paid, under protest, the duty so charged and bring this suit to recover the difference between the amount paid at the rate of 20 per cent. ad valorem and what would have been the amount of the duty on this commodity had it been classed as tallow and charged with duty at the rate of 1 per cent. per pound, as provided in schedule M, § 2504. The only question in the case is one of fact, whether the article imported was tallow or a manufacture of tallow, and the preponderance of proof, I think, shows quite satisfactorily that this imported article was steadne, and that stearine is one of the products resulting from the manufacture of tallow. It is a hard substance or residuum, left after extracting or pressing the oil from the tallow, and the proof fully satisfies me that this is stearine-that it had passed through the process of pressing, and was, at the time of its importation, a manufacture of tallow, and not tallow in its natural condition. The plaintiffs' counsel also contends that this article is entitled to come in under the free list provided for in section 2505, as "grease for use as soap stock only;" but there are, as it seems to me, two complete answers to this proposition: First, that the protest claimed that the article was "tallow" and dutiable at 1 per cent. per pound, and he is confined to the case made by his protest, under section 2931. Second, there is no proof that this article is "grease for soap stock only." The court perhaps might, from common knowledp;e, say any fatty substance can be used in some way for the manufacture of soap, but I cannot say, and certainly the proof does not aid me in saying, that this stearine is only used for the manufacture of soaps. There will be a finding, therefore, for the defendant.
Storck tt Schumann, for plaintiff. Gen. Joseph B. Leake, Dist. Atty., for defendant.
V. ELKIHSMAHOF'G .. GAS 00.
,Oircuit Oourt, N. D.
(JUSTOllS DUTIES-BILK AND COTTON BUAWLS,
January 22, 1884.)
Certain shawls worth 15 shillings and 6 pence, containing one shtlling and six pence worth of silk, and the rest cotton, held, subject to a duty of 35 pel' cent. only, as" shawls, cotton chief value," instead of 60 per cent., as" wearing apparel, silk chief value."
At Law. Storck If Schumann, for plaintiff. Gen. Joseph B. Leake, Dist. Atty., for defendant. BLODGETT, J. The only question in this case is whether certain shawls imported by the plaintiff and which were classed as "wearing apparel, silk chief value," and charged with duty at the rate of 60 per cent. ad valorem, were improperly so classed and should have been classed as "shawls, cotton chief value," and charged with duty at 35 per cent. ad valorem. The proof shows, without dispute, that much the larger component in value of these shawls is cotton. According to the proof the value of these shawls was 15 shillings and 6 pence each, while, if all cotton, they would have only cost 14 shillings each, thus showing that they contained only a very small proportion of silk, and that their value was not increased over 1 shilling and 6 pence by the silk they contain. The issues will be found for the plaintiff.
KIRK and another v.
Multnr'a & GAB Co.J
(U6rMt Court, E. D. PennsUloa'Tl.ia. February 13, 1884.) _
PATENT FOR INVENTION-INFRINGEMENT.
Patent No. 201,536, for improvement in bronze alloys, not infringed hy defendant's metal or alloy, known as "Ajax Metal." in which copper, tin, and arsenic occur in proportions dilferent from the proportions specified in complainant's patent.
Hearing on Bill, Answer, and Proofs. This was a bill to restrain an infringement of ,patent No. 201,536, dated March 19, 1878, for improvement in bronze allo)'s, issued to Edward C. Kirk. H. T. Fenton, for complainants. John G. Johnson, for respondents.
by Albert B. Guilbert.
of the Philadelphia bar.