¶1instructed the jury, that the tariff being a statute, regulating commerce, the terms of it must be construed according to commercial usage and understanding; and that if they found, of which there appeared no doubt, the evidence being uniform to that effect, that the two articles were understood and known among merchants to be different articles of commerce, and that the article in question had not been known in commerce as cotton bagging, it was not subject to the duty, whatever might be the use to which it had been applied.
¶2The jury immediately returned a verdict for the plaintiff.