sc'ceptance 'orth'e benefits. and relief is a bar to the recovery against the , railroad company, Graft v.,!0ilroad Co., 8Atl. Rep. 206. Flick for plaintiff. . John A. Hutchimon, for defendant.
BOND, J., (charging jury.) 1.' If the jury find from the evidence that the plaintiff was an employe o,f the railroad company, defendant, on the 22d day of May, 1887, and at the time of his injury was standing on the platform of a car in which he. Wa$ housed as snch employe, and that by reason of some negligence on the part of other employes of the railroad <lompany a train ran into the car on which the complainant was so housed and transported,and that he himself was not in the car,but on the platform between the cook and sleeping car, sitting on the 'brakewheel, the jury are instructed that such position occupied by the plaintiff was not a proper position for him to occupy, and that, if they believe the evidence of theplainHff in this respect, he is not entitled to re<lover, because he contributed to the injury by his own negligence, by being on the platform, instead of in the car, where he ought to have been. 2. And if theJury find from the evidence that, prior to his ment by the defendant, the plaintiff signed the contract and the receipts in evidence by the defendant, and received the benefits arising therefrom both before the bringing of this suit and afterwards, by which he released the defendant from all default of the defendant's employes, and injuries arising to hiriitherefrom, then the defendant is not liable in this action, and the verdict must be for the defendant.
Verdict for defendant.
et at v. MAGONE, Collector.
(Circuit Ccrwrt, S. D. New York. January 14, 1890.
L, CUSTOMS DUTIEB-FREE-LIST-ACIDS. , The meaning of the provision "for. "all acids used for medicinal, chemical, or manufacturing purposes, not specially enumerated or provided for," contained in the free-list of the tariff actof¥aroh 8,1883 (22 U. S.St. at Large, 488' Tariff Index, new, 594,) seems to, be that a,cids which are used for the reason that, by their ohemica1 combination with other articles, they produce substances medicinal. substances chemical, or substances which are regarded as the fruits of manufacture, are to be admitted free of duty. - So SAME-BAOCHARI1fE. Sacoharine,' which Is a chemical compound consisting of a dry white powder, sweeter by from 280 to 800 times than cane sultar; which is chiefly used in soda and mineral waters, liquors, wines, preserves, chewing tobacco, ('bewing gums medicines, and other things,' btit for the sole purpose of sweetening them; and which, thoup;h chemically an acid, is $lways bought and sold under the name of "saccharine," and never under that of "acid, "-is not free of duty under the abovementioned provision for acids, but is dutiable, as a "chemical compound," at the
LUTZ t1. HAGONlC.
rate of 25 per cent. ad 'Valorem, nnder the proV,ision for" all chemical compounds,\ by whatever name known, and not specially enumerated or provided for, contained 10 Schedule A, of the aforesaid tariff act of 1883, (Tarifll Index, new,
At Law. Action to recover back duties. Louis Lutz, the' original plaintiff in this suit, imported in his lifetime, fr0rI!- Hamburg, Germany, into the port of New York, during the year 1887, certain saccharine. This saccharine was classified for duty by the defendant as collector of customs at that port asa "chemical compound,'lunder the provision for "all chemical compounds, * * · by whatever name known, and not specially enumerated or provided for,!' contained in Schedule A of the tariff act of March 3, 1883, (22 U. S. St. tit Large, 488j Tariff Index, new, 92,) and duty thereon at the rate of 25 per cent. ad valorem was exacted. Against this classification and exaction the said Lutz duly protested, claiming that this saccharine was free of duty as "an acid used for medicinal, chemical, or manufacturing purposes, not specially enumerated or provided for," under the provision for such acids contained in the free-list of the aforesaid tariff act, (Tariff Index, new, 594.) The said Lutz also duly made appeals to the secretary of the treasury, ,and, within 90 days, after adverse decisions were rendered therein by him, brought this suit to recover the duties exacted as aforesaid. Upon the trial of this suit it appeared from the invoices of this saccharine that its invoice price was about $10 a poundj£tom a sample af.the same,that it was a dry white powder, and sweet'to the taste; from the labels on the packages in which it was put upon the market in, this country, that it was described as "Dr. Fahlberg's Saccharine. Patented," etc. ; and from letters patent the that it was manufactured from tolnene and other derivatives of coal tar. It,appeared from the testimony of the plaintiffs' witnesses that this saccharine was from 280 to 300 times as sweet as cane sugarj that its chemical name was "orthosulphamin benzoic acid anhydrid;" that this name chemically denoted an acid from which the water had been removed, and that, tested with litmus paper or an alkaline, it was shown to be chemically an acid, but that it was always bought and sold under the name of saccharine, and never under that of acid; that it was waters, liquors. wines, preserves, chewchiefly used in soda and ing tobaccos, chewing gums, 'medicines, aild()ther things, for the sole purpose of sweetening them; but that it had no medicinal effect on the human or animal system. It appeared from the defendant's testimony that this saccharine was chemically an anhydrid, and not an acid, the distinctionbetween the two being that anarihydrid was an acid from which the water was removed; and that it was a chemical compound. Both sides having rested, counsel for the defendant moved the court to direct the, jury to find a verdict in his favor,.on the ground,among other things, that this saccharine was not "an acid used for medicinal, chemical, or manUfacturing purposes," within the meaning of the aforesaid tariff act 'of 1883. . . Onnstock Brown, for plaintiffs. v.4:1F.no.3-9
180 ,&l;ward'Mitchell, U. S. Atty., and 'Thotnas Greenwood, 'Asst. U. S. Atty.,
LACOMBE, J., (orally charging jury;) 'This. article is, of course, a "chemidaU:otnpound,", (the term is an extremely broad;one,}and would be dutiable as such, unless found in the free-list, (Tariff Index, new, 594.) In order to show that it is found in that paragraph, the ,burden , lies upon the plaintiffs to show that it is an "acid used,for medicinal, chemical, or manufacturing purposes." Now, it appears .that this tiole is mechanically combined with various other substances in the course of their. manufacture, for the sole,purpOse of sweetening, which it dO\1s by its merepl'esence, being'added. unehabgedin condition, to ,thear,. ticle with which it is mixed. ,That maybe a manufacturing purpose, and, when so combined, the result may ,be a manufacture; but the-, saccharine is not thereby used. as an' acid in' manufacture. "The meaning of this paragraph seems to be that acids, which are used for the reason that,by,their chemical combination with other,articles, they produce substaneesmedicinal, substances eb,emical, or substances which are regarded 'as' the' fruits of manufacture, ,are to be admitted .free. But this article, when used' purposes, ianot used as an acid at all. · The article"saJccharine,. is mechanically combined or diluted with other articles; and' thereJfultant articles are pleasant to. the taste by reason Qf the circumstances Df:theirbeing sweetened with the saccharine; but saccharine so used ,cannot he fairly maintained, under the phraseology oHhis paragraph, to be an "acid lised for manufacturing purposes." Surely no one who 'makes the chewing tobacco, the liquors, or the preserves· referred to in testimony, if asked the question, "Do you use any aCids iri. your process of manufacture?" would. answer in the affirmative, on the strength .of the fact that he uses this, saccharine to sweeten his products. Verdiotdireoted for the
, The terItl''' mail, " as used in Rev,'St, U. B. § 5469, relative to 'robbing tlie'man.. may.mean aitben tbe transported by or any " ,letjiel' form,inga llart of it. '. '. .,! .
'To oonstitute the orlme,of stealil15' tbe mail, under this statute, there must beau intent, to steal: at,the time the mail il! ,
,;j,t. ."_" .,'"
Indictment for Robbing R. W. Memminger, Jr., for the DiBt. Atty. Lathrop, for the United States.