being the purchase price fixed by the military board, above mentioned. (2) If not allowed that sum,il'hen that be' m1bwed rent from the time of his ouster allowed either amount, then that he be'''awni-dedthe $600 paId By hIm as purchase p}oneY..PD, l)eqt;llllper19, 1871"i",ithillterest at ,6 . per cent. annum from that In its answer ,the government confesses that plaintiff 'fOf paid property, with interest; but claims that petitioner is not entitled to any other relief asked · for, because the sale was without authority of congress, in violation of the cdnstitutionof the United States,' and therefhre wholly void, and passed no title to plaintiff. The relief asked for in the first and second subdivisions, respectively, of the prayer could. only be granted' on the theory that sale was a valid one,and thattbereby the petitioner acquired, as against the United States, th«:l f]111 title to the property. No 1l.uthority: whatever has been produced, nor have I been able jo find any 'law, whi(}h ·will support such' a theory. The 'sale was not authorized nor ratified by congress,cahd I must therefore hold that it was void. Judgment, however, is 'given for petitioner for the amount confessed in the answedo be due, to-witj the sum: of $600, with interest at 6 per cent. per annuM'frolD December 19, 1871, and the costs of the clerk of the OOtitt, .afttlt:issue Joined. '
(Circu,Ct Oourt, B. D.New York.
Ootober 18, 1891.)
CusTOMS Dt1'1'IB8-MANUl!'AOTlJRBDARTIOLES-PIIIOBS OF BEVELED GLASS.
A deci&ioQof the board of appraisers that small squares, triangles, and circles of glass, tbe. squares from. 2Mx2M to 4x4, and the circles from 5 to 6 inches in diameter, witb ·edges beveled ILtld' polished, are dutiable at 45 percent. ad valorem as oj' glal!s cut," underAot Cong, March II, 1883. (Tariff Ind. New, par. 135,) rather tba,p. at8eents per square as "cast polished. plate-glass, unsilvered," 'not:eJiceeding 1Ox15 incbessquare, under Tariff Ind. New, par. 140, of said act, will Qot be distql"bed, although the bevel w.as produced by abrasion, rather than by cut. ting With. a'sharp it appearing that in the trade of the glass cutter the word "cutting"'is frequently used to denote a process which in popular language would iliOn! properly be styled "grinding" or "abrading. "
At fr0Irl,thereport of district attorney: "Theprocee(ling was an by:the importers for a review by the decision of the board,o,f United States general appraisers, delivered On the 13th of February, 1891, affirming the decision of the collector orlthe classification of certain merchandise, * ... * which merchandise was classified'for duty by the as · articles of glass cut,' aDd duty assessed thereon at the rate Elf 45 per celit.,ad valorem. under the provisions of 1artff Ind. NaW, par. 135; (Tariff Act March 3, 1883.) Against this classiflcation the importers protested. claiming tlJat the merchandise was,uutiable at three cents per square f!l0t as ·cast poHshtd plate-gl8$s. unsilvered.' not exceeding 10x15 inches sq,uare, tinder. Tariff Ind. New, par. 140,of said tariff act. and, if not so dutiable; then at four cents per square foot, under Tariff Ind. New, par. 141, of said act, as ·looking-glass plates.' The importers
abandoned theIr contention under the last be8d,andstood upOn their claim that the merchandise was dutiable under Tariff Ind. New, par. 140. * *,' * It, appellred that the merchand,is,e in this prt-sent procellding consisted of small squares; triangles, and circles,'varyingiusize, the squares lip to 4x4 inches, the half squal-saor triangles from 2!x2!up to 4x4, and the circles trom 5 inches up to 6 inches in diameter. Thesesrticles were made frum polished plate-glass, and all of them beveled, as to their edges with a b..vel of from to one inch in width, polished. It appeared by the evidence that they were a finished article, as bought and sold in t1le trade of this country." CfYIn8tock « Brown, for appellant. Jamea T. Van Rensselaer, for'the United States.
IJACOMBE, Circuit Judge. As to the proposition advanced that the articles in question are dutiable under paragraph 140, rather than under paragraph 135, for the reason that paragraph 140 is denominative and paragraph 135 descriptive, I am unable to assent to the views of the plaintiff, because it seems to me that paragraph 140 is not truly denominative. but in fact descriptive. Referring to glass in the form of plate which has been cast, which has been polished, and which has not been silvered, it is not, in, my judgment, the equivalent of such a term as " handkerchiefs," which was found by the supreme court in the Glendinning aue, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 44, to be a denominative term, and to take prpcedence of the mere descriptive phrase. It is claimed by the collector that these are dutiable as articles of glass cut. The testimony hera shows that the bevel upon the glass was produced by a process of abrasion. Such operation is not" cutting," in the ordinary sense of the word, as found in the dictionaries. There has been neither section nor incision by a cQtting instrumeut,-a sharp-edged instrument. Still the board of appraisers have found and returned that the beveled erlges were produced by cutting, and withoutgoil1g into a discussion of its details, I do not think that. the. testimony, as a whole, will warrant the court in reversing their decision, there being sufficient in it to warrant the inference that in the trade orthe glass cutter the word "cutting" is frequently used as descriptive of a process which would be more accurately described in common speech as "grinding" or "ahrading." For these reasons the decision of the bo ard of appraisers is affirmed.
«(}trcutt Ccrurt, B.D. New Yor"- April20,l892.)
CuSTOMS DUTI)!:s-MEN'8 LEATB;ER GLOVES.
Men's leather pique or prick seam gloves held to be dutiable at 50 per cent. ad with an additional duty of one dollar per dozen pairs.
I. SAME-PARAGRAPH 458, SOHEDULE N, TARIFF AOT OOT. 1,1690. The additional duties provided for in the said paragr aph hela to be alternative,
and not cumulative.