UNx:rED STATES 'lJ. STEVENS.
(D£8fJrlct OOUrt, W. D. Viralnia.
COUN'l'EJl.ll'EITING-NOTBS IN THE SIMILITUDE OIl' TREASURY OR NATIONAL BANK NOTES. .
The, fact, that a note was originally issued by a dulv-authorlzed state bank, and 'that ItW8.S a legal note at the time of its Issuance, does not, after It has become, utterly wOl'thless by the insolvency of the bank, exempt the holder of it fr0In' pr4?secutlon, under section of, the Revised Statutes, If he has it In possession with Intent to selI or otherwise use it. and pass It as a genuine note or ObligMlon of the United States. , The que$t.tqtt as to the slIIillitudeof'Such note to the treasury notes or otherobligations'ofthe United States is a:questlon to be decided by the jury. as are also the facts as til whether the,.defenllant had tlle question in hIS possession with Intent to sell or otherwise use tfle same, and whether he knew at the time that said note was worthies&. '
OIl' THE COURT AND JUQY.
AtLaw.. Harrison Stevens had been indicted under the provisions of section 5430 of the Revised Statutes of the United States for having in his possession' or custody, without authority from the secretary of the treasury or othei'properofficer, an:obligation or othersecurity engraved and printed after the similitude of 8.l1oblig;ationor other security, issued under the authorityofthe United States, with intent to sell or otherwise use the same. In the progress of tbe trial the evidence disclosed that the obligation 01' security in question was a genuine!notiloLtheBank of Mecklenburg, N. C' j a state bank which, during its existence, had issued its obligations as lawful currency,but which had become utterly insolvent, leaving its circulating notes unprovided for and worthless; upon which disclosure counsel for defendant moved tpe court to arrest the trial, and instrubtthe jury that the having of such ,a noteClr obligation as described by the evidence in this case in possession, without authority from the seoretary of the treasury or other proper officer, as alleged in the indictment, with .the intent alleged in the indictment, was not a violation of the section of the Revised Statutes of the United States cited in the indictment. Motion denied. W. E. (Jraig.U.S. Atty. E. Bo' Wither8, for defendant.
PAuL,DistrictJudge. The indictment in this case is under the following pro.visioI:l of seotion5430 oLthe Revised Statutes of the United States: "Everyper.son II< ... · . who .·las in his possession or custody, except under autbority f.om the secretary of tbe treasury or other proper ollicer, any .ab,ligation securi.t,rengraved and printed the ,similitude of any opligation or under the authori,tyof the United States, with intent . Of use the, same, '" ... ... shall be punished (in the manner prescribed in the:statute.]" .' The evidence before the court, at present, shows that the note or obligation which the defendant is charged with having had in his pos-
IN BE H. B. CLAFLIN 00.
aession, with intent to sell or otherwise use the same, was a note issued hya regularly chartered state bank, but which at the time defendant is alleged to have had in his possession the note in question was utterly insolvent and its notes worthle88. The question presented to the court fGl its decision is, is the havinK in possession, without authority from the secretary of the treasury or other proper officer, with intent to sell or otherwise use, the notes of 'a broken bank, the said notes being worthless, but being engraved and printed after the similitude of a United Statell treasury or national bank note, a violation of the provision of the statute cited? The object of the provision of the statute under which this indictment is framed is manifestly to preserve the integrity of the national treasury and bank note currency, and to prevent the imposition on the public of worthless notes or obligations of any kind purporting to be the genuine obligations of the United States. It seems to the court that the fact that the note in question was originally issued by a duly-authorized bank, and that it was a legal note at the time of its issuance, does not, after it has become utterly worthless by the insolvency of the bank, exempt the holder of it from prosecution, if he has it in possession with intent to sell or otherwille use and pass it as a genuine note or obligation of the United States. The possession of such a note orobligation, with intent to sell or otherwise use it, falls within the mischief intended to be prevented by .the statute. "To constitute the offense,. it is not essential that the fraudulent note or obligation should on its face purport to be an obligation of the United States." U. S. v. Willia/TII8, 14 Fed. Rep. 551. The question as to the similitude of the note alleged to have been passed by the defendant to the treasury or national bank notes or other obligations of the United States is a question to be determined by the jury, as are also the facts as to whether the defendant had the note in question in his with intent to sell or otherwise use the same, and as to whether he knew at the time that said note was worthless. ' Verdict. "Not gUilty."
In re H. B.
(Cf'l'cmt Cowrt oj Appeals, Second. Owcuit. October 4, 1.801.)
Ov8TOMS DUTIES-CLASSIPIOATION-HEMSTITOHED HANDKEROHIkE's.
Hemstitched cotton handkerchiefs, known as such in trade and commerce at the time the tariff act of 1883 was passed, are not "hemmed handkerchiefs,» within Schedule I, par. 325, thereof, imposing- a duty of 40 per cent. ad valorem, but are dutiable at 85 per cent. ad vaZorem, under paragraph 824 of the same schedule, U "manufactures of cotton not specially enumerated." W ALLAOE, J., dissenting.' 47 Fed. Rep. 875, affirmed.
Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Application by H. B. Claflin Company for a review of a decision by the board of general appraif!ers, as to the classification of certain imported hemstitched cotton handkerchiefs. The collector had held that the goode were "hemmed handkerchiefs,", within the meaning of, the ,lWt of