J. E. Bailey, but nothing, whatever that was done or charged to have been done by Johnston.]" Following this, and apparently as a second count in the information, Johnston is charged with furnish· ing a certain certificate to the said Bailey for the purpose of ob' fltructing the due administration of justice in said district court of the United States for the Middle district of. Alabama, which he knew when he made and fUrnished the same was false. Only inci· dentally or inferentially is it charged that Johnston made the said certificate, and nowhere is it specifically charged that he made it and furnished it with any corrupt intent. There was· no in the case to show that Johnston made or furnished the specific certificate set forth in the information. It is true, there was evidence tending to show that he made and furnished to the said Bailey a certificate similar to a part of the certificate set forth in the information; but there isa fatal variance between the· certificate proved to.bave been made and furnished by Johnston and the one charged in the information to have been furnished by him. For these reasons, the judgment of the district court is reversed, and the case is remanded, with instructions to set aside the vel" diet and sentence, and quash the information.
DINGELSTE1)T et aI. v. UNITED STATES. REISINGER et al. v. SAME.
(CtrcultCourt, S. D. New York.
December. 9, 1897.)
CUSTOMS DUTIES-CLASSIFICATION-El.ECTRIC LIGHT CARBONS.
Electric light carbons, of which lampblack Is the chief component, were dutiable under section 3 of the· act of 1894, at 2() per cent., as "articles manufactured In whole or In part, not provided for," and. not as "articles composed of earthern or mineral substances," under paragraph 86, or preparations or products of coal tar, under paragraph 448.
These were appeals by Dingelstedt & Co., and by H. Reisinger & Co. from decisions of, the board of general appraisers affirming decisions of the collector of the port of New York in regard to the classification ·for duty,under the act of August 28, 1894, of certain electric light carbons; EveritBrown, for plaintiffs Dingelstedt & Co. W. Wickham Smith,for plaintiffs H. Reisinger &>00. .Henry D.Sedgwick, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty.
WHEELER, Dis1:rietJUdge. These electric light carbons, of which lampblack is the 'chief component, do not. seem to be "composed of earthen or miIl;eral substances," within paragraph 86 of the tariff act of 1894; nor "preparations" or "products of coal tar," within paragraph 443. They rather seem to be "articles manufactured in whole .in.part, not provided under section 8. dutiable at 20 per cent.' Decision reversed. ,.
M'CREERY V. UNITED STATES.
McCREERY et al.v. UNITED STATES. (Olrcuit Court, S. D. New York. No. 2,246.
December 9, 1897.)
Fabrics composed In chief value of silk woven 22 Inches wide, and used for making waists or skirts for women's and children's dresses, and also for sleeves and trimming of dresses, and which were known commercially as silks, held to be dutiable under paragraph 302 of the act of August 28. 1894, as manufactures of silk, "or of which silk is the component material of chief value," and not under paragraph 283.
This was an application to review a decision of the board of general appraisers affirming a decision of the collector of the port of New York in regard to the classification for duties under the act of August 28, 1894, of certain fabrics. The general appraisers found that they were composed of silk and worsted, silk being the component material of chief value in all. but wool predominating in 'quantity in all but one. Edwin B. Smith, for plaintiffs. James T. Van Rensselaer, Asst. U. S. Atty. WHEELER, District Judge. reports: The board of general appraisers
"These fabrics are woven twenty-two inches wide, and they are used for makIng waists or skirts for women's and children's dresses, and also, in combination costumes, for sleeves and the trimming of dresses.' They are commercially known as women's and children's dress goods, or are goods of similar description and character."
They classify the goods as women's and children's dress goods, under paragraph 283, Act Aug. 28, 1894, against a protest that they should be claslsified under paragraph 302, which covers "all man· ufactures of silk, or of which silk is the component material of chief value, including those having India rubber as' a component material, not specially provided for in this act." The evidence in this court shows that the goods were not commercially known as dress goods, but as silks. If they are not such dress goods, they come exactlY under the description in paragra:rh 302, as goods "of ''which silk is the component material of chief value." The board dill not find the goods were such dres's goods, but that they were such, "or are goods of ,similar description and character." Para· graph 283 does not provide for such goods, or for those of similar description and character, but for such dress goods. They are such goods or not, and they appear to be not. Decision reversed.