assessed;aild where an article like this, by the Uses to which it is adapted, and fOf which it is dealt in, comes within the scope of this clalise, it seems to me the specific duty only should be assessed, and resort need not be had to the assimilating clauses fortha purpose of analogous classification. The issue is found for the plaintiff, and Judgment may be entered for the amount of the excess of duties paid. .
COlrcult Oourt, No
March 14, 1887.)
.. Hair-clippers" used by barbers in cutting hair close' or short should be rated as "cutlery," and. (lharged duty at 85 per cent. ad flalorem.
2. SAME-CRrrERION-NAME---:-MACHINES-,-USE. The name of an imported article is 'not the sole gui4.e by which
to classify it for duty; Its uses, especially when it is new, and II substitute for other articles, be considered.
At Law. Action to recover excess ofduties paid under protest. P. L. Sh1JlTlULn. for plaintiff. W. G. $'W'i:ng, U. S. Dist. Atty., for defendant.
BLODGETT, J. The plaintiff imported an invoice of"hair-clippers." used by barbers in cutting hair close or short. A duty of 45 per cent. ad valorem, was assessed against them under the last .clause of Schedule C in the act of March 3, 1883, (clause 216, Heyel's New Tariff Index,) as "a manufacture composed wholly orin part of steel, not otherwise enumerated or provided for." The plaintiff claimed the goods should have been classed as "cutlery," under clause 197, Heye1's Index,' and charged duty at the rate of 35 per cent. ad, valorem. The duty as. assessed was paid under protest; an appeal taken to the secretary ,of the treasury, who affirmed the action of the collector; and this suit was brought in apt time to recover back the alleged excess of duty so paid. The implements in question operate upon the same principle as shears or scissors, having fingers which run close to the skin, and gather and hold the hair where it can be clipped off by the reciprocating action of the cutting blades upon the fingers, and are intended to take the place of shears and scissors in the work of trimming and cutting hair and beards.' The proof shows that ,these goods are soJd and dealt in as "cutlery," and kIiown by that name to the trade. These implements, in their stl'ucture and use, are most analogous to shears and scissors; but I find no speoific duty upon shears and and it is admitted that they are classed as cutlery for the purpose of assessing duty; which woul4 seem to be the rule from the tenor of treasury decision 3195,
COHN V. SEEBERGER.
Synaptical Series. One of Webster's definitions of the word "cutlery" is: "Edl!;ed drcutting instruments in general." Pen and pocket knives and razors, which might also come under the general designation of "cutlery," are chargeable with a specific duty of 30 per cent. ad valorem, (paragraph 207, NewTariif Index,) and, being so specifically charged, they are, of course, takerl'from the operation of the general term "cut1ery;" butI am very clearly of opinion that, if shears and scissors come in the general· definition ·qf cutlery, these instruments should also be 91assed 'th&e, so 1011g as there.is no specific duty imposed upon them. Olle oE:the ,grounds, if not the only one, assigned for goods ,"as a manufacture of steel not otherwise ptovided for," was that the trade circular of the manufacturer calls them "machines." I do not tq.a.t a name should be the .sole guide by which to classify imported goods for duty. The use, and especially when an article is new lI-pdja for ;other .articl may be and often is an important guide to"the proper These articles, as I have said, are more and scissors,in their operation and .uses than like any other . implement, and I, see no reason why they should be called "'which woll1d' not justify the application of the same term to ,sl1'ears,:,ottothe comml;>nclassof,pocket-knives·. the light of the Pl"Oqf'fUlerefore, and the analogies, I conclude that these goods should have been classed as "cutlery," and chal"ged duty ,at 315 per cent. ad valorem. . The found for the plaintiff.
and others v. SEEBERGER, Collector, etc.
(Otrcuit Court, No D. llJinoi8. March 14,1887.)
cUSTOMS DUTms:'-WORSTED-NON-ENUMERATED A:RTICLES-" DIAGONALS. to
Cloths popularly knowriias"diagonals," worsted being the component of chief v8.lue, should be claseedfor duty as 8. "manufacture of worsted not othei'wjsllprovided for," 868, NllW Tariff,) and not as "woolens, " and &til subject to a duty of 24 cents per pound, and 85 per cent. aa
At Law. Action to recover excess of duties paid under protest. P. Shuman, for plaintiff. . W. G. EWing, U. S. Atbt., for defendant. '
BLODaETT,· Plaintiffs imported an invoice of cloths popularly known as "diagonals,"whi6h'were classed by the collElctor as "woolens," and a dutyqf 35 cents per pound and 35 per cent. ad valorem assessed -upon them; under paragraph 362 of the New Tariff as indexed by the treasury department. J,>laintiffs .ipsisted that. the· goods should have ·been class.ed ,as "manufactures o'f worsted not otherwise provided for," and a duty assessed upon them, under paragraph 363 of the New Tariff,