as to the amount of the issue, or by comparing any information given by the bond with the record notice of the assessed valuation, know that the county had exceeded its power in the issue of the bond. So that, taking the case of·Oounty of Dixon v. Field as the latest annunciation of the supreme court in respect to the rule of decision, it must be held that the county is estopped from pleading in this case that the bond was issued in exchange for a void warrant. . of plaintiff sustained. Motion for judgment in
(Circuit Oourt,S.'!). New York. January 12,1888.)
CUSTOMS· 'IDUTIEs-CLASSIFICATION-WOOL COVERINGSPOR THE HEAD. .
, : of w:ool. kn,iton frames, imported. froni Scotland. and ulled for a covering for .the head, are properly assessed for duty under tariff. Mt par. 36ltwhich reads: "Flannels, blankets, hats of wool, knit goods,and goods made on knitting frames," etc., and not under paragraph 400, whiCh provides' for duty on "bonnets, hats. and hoods for. men. women, aJ;ldllltiI· dren,composed of chip, grass, palm leaf," etc., as the word "bonne\"in the statute is not sufficiently broad, nor Buch peculiar, technical tr'ade-meanhig coupled with it as to cover these goods. r:'.
At Law. Action to recover back customs d u t i e s . , · Ohaa. Curie, for plaintiff. Stephen A. Walker, U. S. Dist. Atty., and W. Wichham Smith, Asato U. S. Dist. Atty., for defendant.
LACOMBE, J., (orally.) The articles in this case are made of wool,'s.r& knit on frames, are used for a covering for the head, and come from Scotland, and they have been assessed for duty by the collector under paragraph 363 of the tariff act, which reads: "Flannels, blankets,bats of wool, knit goods, and all goods made on knitting frames, balmoril1S, woolen and worsted yarns," etc. . It is claimed by the plaintiff that they are properly assessable tinder paragraph 400, as follows: "Bonnets, hatR, and hoods for meu, women, and children, composed of chip, grass, palm leaf, willow, or straw, or any other vegetable suhstance, hair, whale bone, or other material not specially enumerated or provided for in this act." The words used in tariff statutes, when not technical, either as having a special sense by commercial usage,or as having a scientific meaning different from the popular meaning,-in other words, when they are words of common speech,-are within the judicial knowledge, and their interpretation is a matter oHaw. The plaintiff contends that the word" bonnets" in this phrase, '(bonnets, hats, and hoods for men, womeri, and children," or, as,he the words, "bonnets for men" is t6 be taken ihiis 'ordinary:acceptatioo, and:nbtas a technical word, or as a commercial
term with J,11elJ,r.ing attached to it in the of trade and commerce. ' ,He fur,therclaims, thltt such general, common, every-day as are the subject ofthis suit., ,They! are, what meaning cover(:l have been call1:ld by some of the witnesses Scotch capSj:tbiilY' are a headcoverir,tg jn ,us,e in, Scotlllnd, 'and im}:lorted from there to this country, and l infl:lr that they, have ,been, in their present shape, in use in Scotland for many years. The first thing" then; to be determined is the meaning of the word "bonnet." What is its ordinary and received acceptation' in the English language, as used in this country, where congress legislates? What is its popular and received import? What is its common, every day meaning? Such, under the decisions, is the question which is to be answered. Now, it needed not a reference to the quotations Which were read here on this trial to satisfy us all that heretofore, at the time when the Bible was trans;tj.We, :when Shakspeare wrote his plays, at the time that lated, at Walter Scott wrote his novels, and to-day, even, in novels, narratives, life,-the word "bonnet" Was andis used or as meaning and inclUding a cover for the head. Is it Lin use in that sense, however, now,-p,y.nowI mean 1v.[itrCh 3, 18$3,--in'this country. and eyclopredias published in England and in Scotland have been referred to;:'butr 'suppose there is no better iluthoiity',tlpon to.day', ./39 far as J( is out-than the English dictionary published under the auspices of the Philological Society, and edited by Mr. Murray· That dictionary, under the definition of" bonnet," describes it as a "head ,dress of men· and boys, usually soft, and distinguished from the hat by want of a brimj .in EnglaIKL 8uperseded in, use apparently before 1700 by ('.up, but retained in Scotland; hence sometimes treated as equivalenttoa Scotch cap." That seems to be the best English authority on the use of the 'tenn.. But it is not.its use in 'England which cQncerns us here. of ;the word in thi'$ country? Whatilil onMar<:h,3,;1883? TheJexicons ,are, of course, the fil'E\t .a,\lthority to.,be.consu,lted upon such a, question. But I do not understand, uqderthe decisionlili that they are the sole ,fountain of authority, and that the court, in deciding the ques,tion, is restricted to the precise use(),. in any particular dictionary. TWQ dictionltries are recygllize<i the standards for this country,-Webster. and Worcester. The editionpf, W9rqestt;lr haa bt;lenput in evidence gives, as the first wqrnby 1I1en,'" with a quotation from.8haksdefinition, Peare iJ;1Jllustration, however, with a sign indicating thatitWl:l8 tl.t the time that 'edition pf the dictionary W/lSpublished, which was jqthe,year:!860., dictionary, edition of 1865, does not word has become obsolete when contain, apyexpress us.edin thlttsensej.,buUhephra&eolpgy of the first definition which.1t gi ves <as, not. necessarily to be in conflict with the statement in is: "A cap or covering £qr the head, in common use before the .of stm used by the Scotoh." Whether or not that p,articular paragraph means that the cap or covering was ,in
common use, or that.thenarlleofbonnet·inthat sense was in common the face of the use, is not entirely paragraph. If there.is no conflict .between these two authorities, then the statement in Worcester may betakim as conclusive. If, however, there is a conflict between them, then the court must determine this question from its own knowledge as to the ,use of the word. 'fhree witnesses-and I do not refer to their testimony as enlightening . the court upon the meaning of the word, nor do I predicate my ruling upon their testimony, but I refer to it in illustration merely-three witnesses gave suggestive testimony upon this point. Mr. Dunlap sells a great many of these caps,-imports and sells them,':'-and buys them also, I presume, from manufacturers here. He sells them on the call of his customers as caps, except that Scotchmen have called and asked for a bonnE'it. Mr. Russell, himself a Scotchman, knows what a bonnet is; but though he has been in business here long, and sold many of them, he testifies that no one here has asked for these goods,asking for them by the name of bonnet. The other, a most important witness on that point, is the plaintiff himself. No one arriving in a strange city anyWhere in this country, and wishing to purchase a Scotch 'cap, who should look over a business directory to find a shop at which to buy. it, would go to a person who advertised himself as a dealer in bonnets. Thl' plaintiff seems to have recognized that fact fully, for, upon his sign, he describes himself as an importer of Scotch caps. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the word "bonnet" is not in this statute sufficiently broad to cover the goods the subject of this suit, unllli!!l it is, made so by having affixed to it at the time congress pa8sed this act SOme peculiar, technical, trade meaning, which coupled it, in the minds of the legislators, with these particular goods, or goods similar to them. Of this there is no proof, and I shall, therefore, deny the plaintiff's motion for a verdict, and shall direct a verdict for the defendant.
UNITED STATES f1. GREEN.
(Oircuit Oourt. E. D. Missouri, E. D. April 19, 1887.)
Under a proper construction of the laws of Missouri defining the duties of clerks Of'election in the city of St.Louis,' such officers are not reqoired to certify as to the result of an election. Theduty of certif;ring as to the result of an. election is imposed on the judges of election, while clerks of election are merely. required attest" or authenticate tbe signatures of the judges to the certificate. Vide Sess. Laws Mo. 1883, pp. 44, 45, §§ 19,20.24; Rev. St. ·Mo.. 5495, 5498. All indictment having been drawn against a clerk of under that clause of eection 5515,Rev. St. U. S., which declares it to . bean.oft:ense ".to make a false certificate as to the rcsult"of a congressional election',: hsld,.that such indictment was bad on demurrer, inasmuch as it was not a clerk's d\ltyto certify as to the resolt Of the election. Held, furth6'/', that ,the,clerk. by attesting the,poll·book, did npt certify as to the correctness of. the Ctlun't of the votes, but merely authenticated the of thejudgesi whose duty it was to count the votes and certif)' as to the result. ' . .
AGAINST-ATTESTATION, OF POLL-BOOKS BY CLERK.