in the b}dic4rJ,ent is a Upited States note.. This objection cannot be sustained. .The decisioI1$.ll,re that,where a bill is set out by its tenor in an indictment, any designation of it in the indictment is immaterial. It was so held by this tmurt in the case of U. S. v. Bennett, 17 BlatChf. 357.· The prior case of U. S. v. Mason, 12 Blatchf. 497, is not contrary to this. All that was said in the Mason Case is that. a wrong designation of the bill was a defect. It was not said to be a fatal defect, and the count was not held bad for that reason, but for other reasons stated. The law applicable here is stated in Bennett's Case, supra. it is contended that there is a fatal variance between the indictment and the proof because all the matter printed on the back of the note put in evidence is not set forth in the indictment. The matter set forth in the indictment was proved as laid. The indict· meAt <loes not charge that the matter set forth constituted all the matterotl the back of the bill, nor was it necessary to set forth all the matter on the back of the bill. What is omitted is a mere notice required by law to be placed upon notes of this character, but which is no part of the contract. The allegation of the indictment that the bill was in the words and figures does not mean that all the words and figures printed on the back of the bill, and forming no part set forth on the face. of, .the bill, are stated. Where an in theindictn:i.$t by its purport, the allegation refers to. what on the face of the instrument. U. S. v. Hinman, 1 Baldw.292. The remaiIting question is raised by the objection taken to the proving that .tlle accused was the person who passed the bill to Abel by the of the accused that he so passed it. In support of tb.fs objection, .therule that the corpus delicti cannot be proved by the admission the accused is relied on. That rule was not infringed at the trial of this case. When the charge is uttering counterfeit money with to defraud, the corpus delicti is sufficiently when it is shown that the counterfeit bill described had been uttered as true. That being shown, the agency of the accused in passing the bill may be shown by his confession. Abb. Tr. Brief, p.305. In this case the uttering of the bill a,s true to Abel was clearly proved before evidence of the. cOIIlfession .of the accused was admitted. I am Mked to set aside' the verdict as not supported by the weight of eyidence. .In my opinion the verdict was in accordance with the weight of evidence. Both motions must therefore be dismissed.
In re STANDARD VARNISH WORKS.
(Oireuit Oourt. S. D. New York. January 9, 1893.)
OUSTOMS DU'l'tE8-0ANDLE TAR-ACT OQT. 1, 1890.
'rhe article known in trade as "candle tar" or "palm pitch" is not dutiable as paragraph 472, at 10 per cent. ad valorem, but is properly assessed .as a nonenumerated manufactured article at 20 pet cent. ad valorem, under section 4 of the act of October 1, 1R90.
IN BE WHITE.
At Law. Appeal by importers from decision of United States general appraisers. Affirmed. .
The Standard Varnish Works imported by the steamer California on May 18, 1891, certain merchandise known as "candle tar" or "palm pitch," which was classilled and assessed for duty by the collector of customs at New York as a nonenumerated manufactured article, at 20 per cent. ad valorem, under se()tion 4 of the act of October 1, 1890. The Impol1:ers duly claiming the sallie to be dutiable at 10 per cent. ad valorem, as "waste," under paragraph 472 of said act. The board of United States general appraisers affirmed the assessment of the collector, and an appeal was taken by the importers to the United States circuit court, under the provisions of the act of June 10, subject of the importation was produced by subjecting tallow, 1890. animal grease, and palm oil to treatment in closed retorts or boilers to superheated steam, whereby the stearine and the candle tar were separated, the stearine carried out of the retort by distillation, and the candle tar remainiug in the retort. 'Ibis manufacture resulted in the two products,-stearine and candle tar; the latter of which is used for waterproofing barrels, covering roofs, and also for increasing the body of varnish. The importers claimed it to be mere waste, and not a biproduct.
Edward Mit.chell, U. S. Atty., and Henry C. Platt, Asst. U. S. Atty., for collector. W. Wickham Smith, for importers.
con, District Judge, (orally.) The merchandise in this case is a manufactured article, and is imported, bought, sold and used, as an article of trade and commerce. It is liot a natural product, and there is no evidence in t.he record to show that it can be made, except by the process described. The decision of the United States general appraisers is affirmed.
In re WIDTE et al.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York. January 5,1893.)
CUSTOMS DUTIES-ApPEAL FROM GENERAL ApPHAlSERS-EvIDENCE.
The decisions of the board of Unit,.'d States general appraisers on disputed evidence as to the facts will not be disturbed by the court. chiefiy in purposes. cents per at 40 per
Paddings or canVIl.S, from 18 to 24 inches in width, and used the clotbing trade, and for making small bags, and for similar are dutiable, under the act of October, 1890, as "burlaps," at 1% pound, under paragraph 364, and not as "manufactures of jute," centum ad valorem, under paragraph 374 of said act.
OF ACTS. .
'The act of March 3, 1883, provided specially for a duty upon "paddings" and "canYas" (paragraph 334) different from "burlaps," (paragraph 338,) but the act of October 1, 1890, omitted llUY special mention of paddings or canvas in any paragraph. Held that, as jute paddings or canvas are a species of "burlaps," they are now dutiable, as such, under the latter act.
At Law.. Appeal from decision of the United St.ates generaJ appraisers. Affirmed.
imPQrted merchandise in this suit consisted. of jute goods woven, from 18 to .24 inches in widfu, commonly known in thc trade as "paddings" or "ClUl,llS," which were classified by the collector as "manufactures of jute,"' dutiable at 40per cent. ad valorem, under paragraph 314, of the tariff act ot October 1, J890. The importers duly protested, elaitning:said .merchandise to