ldORRIS 'II" BOBE::tTSON.
the words" of I am 'ofthe opiaiollJ that the'articles in suit are fairly within, the enumeration:;of paragtaph454. enumerated, tAey are not within, the operation of the similitude clause. For that reason, I shall direct a verdict for the defendant. Exception to the
MORRIS 'l1.' ROBERTSON.
8. D. Nt/IJ) York. November 26, lB88.)
CuS'fOHB DU'l'IES-EXCESS OF Al'l'RAISEMEN'l' OVER ENTRY VALUE-PENALTY.
(S1/llabu8 by tke Court.) . .. ,
At "Action to recover back customs duties. ,i, " .In JJIly,1882,. thepJaintiff made an importaticmintp the port ofNew. 'York, as part of which there was a "payked lots of precious stones, which were described upon the invoice 8S follows: (1) 125 k. common cat's-eyes, lot star stones, 2 lots fancy stones, 1 King topaz, 6 King topazes; (2) lot matrix opals;' (3) 6 Labrador heads; (4) 4 lots wood cat's-eyes; (5) 1 ruby; (6) 110 k. spinels; (7) 1131 k. spinels; (8) 51 k. sapphire and (9) 20 t k. sapphires. These goods were classified for duty by the defendant as collector of customs at 10 percent. ad valorem as "precious stones," under the paragraph beginning with those words in Sched'ule M of section 2504 of the Revised Statutes. The correctness of. this classification was not I quaSh tioned. 'Areitppraiserrient was ordered by the collector, on which'it was found tha.tthree of the above nine lots were undetv-alued more tnan 10 percent.; lot '1 being undervalued 14 per cent., andiots 6, and'7 each 20 per cent. The aggregate undervaluation of all the lots taken as a whole wlis but 8 .and2-10 per Cent. On the three lots found to unfiervaiuedmore.than 10 per cent. the defendant, as collector, assessed: an additional duty of 20 pet'cent.'; acting under of secti9.I1. of'th'e Revised Statutes, whereas the :that this additional duty was not properly assessed, for ,the reason that the aggregate undervaluation of the invoice did not amount to 10 per cent. The value, 8s;declared upon the entry; 'was a.lurnp sum,being'thEl'aggreit appears upon. the invoice; and, as compared with··this ,sum, the above stated was' hut 8, and2-l:0 per ,The testimony was uncontradicted that, whereas all the items mentioned in the invoice were nlaced commercially!n the classofipre..i
cious stones, still that they were known to trade and commerce in this country each by its specific trade name, as it appears upon the invoice; that they were of different colors and appearances, and varied much in price. Stephen G. Clarke and Charles Curie, for plaintiff. . Stephen A. Walker, U. S. Atty., and Macgrane Gou, Asst. U. S. Atty., cited Schmeidel' v. Barney, 6 Fed. Rep. 150.
LACOMBE, J., (orally, after stating the facts as a,bove.) Whether or not the penalty provided for in section 2900, Rev I St., is to be exacted from an importer is to be determined by a comparison of the value declared in the entry with the value found upon appraisement. Although articles may be dissimilar, and known by different trade names, still, if they belong to the same class, and are grouped together in the tariff acts as dutiable under their, dass name at the same rate, and are valued in the entry only at a lump sum for the entire importation, the penalty is incurred unless the' appraisement of the importation as a whole exceeds by'lO per cent. or more the value so declared on the entry. The case decided by Judge SHIPMAN,'and referred to on the argument (Schmeider v. Barney, 6 Fed. Rep. 150,) does not apply to the case at bar, because in that case the different were apparently separately val· ued upon the amended entry, so that comparison of the declared value of each variety with the appraiser's report was practicable. Verdict ' must be directed for the plaintiff.
UNITED STATES tl. TAYLOR.
(DiBtrict Oourt, E. D. Michigan.
POBT-OFFIClC-EllBlCZZLEMENT OF LETTER.
An employe of the post-office .depllortment can only be convicted of embezzling such letters as are, at the timll, a proper subject of deposit in the mail; and where a postmaster received $Hi in paper money and $a in silver. which were handed to him in his office',with a request that he send it in a registered letter, and he took the money, put it in an envelope, which he addressed. wrote a letter to accompany the remittance, delivered to the sender the usual receipt for a registered letter. received the fee for registration, and said it would be all right; but there was no evidence that the silver mouey had been exchanged for paper, or that the letter was ever stamped or sealed, or put in the special envelopll used for. registered letters,-it was held that his conviction for embezzling a "letter" should be set aside. (811llabu8 by the Oourt.)
On Motion for New Trial. Indictment for embezzlement of a letter. Defendant, who was postmaster at RAese, a small, office in Tuscola county, was convicted of the embezzlement of a letter, and the stealing of its contents, under the following circumstances:' The sender of the letter brought the defendant $15 in paper money and $3 in silver, and