32 F. 73 -

DIECKERHOFF V. ROBERTSON.

73

may award him damages not only for his mental anguish in the disgrace of his daughter, but for his anxiety as to what is to of her in the future. You may take into consideration his feeling of anxiety as to the effect ·of that daughter's example upon his other child. You may look to the loss to him and his family of social standing ltndposition by reason of the daughter's disgrace. You may consider bis mortification, humiliation. and sense of dishonor. The world, as we know, visits upon the girl or woman more severe condemnation for such acts than it does and. ostraupon the man. She and her family are more or less cized. Toa considerable extent, the hopes and prospects of the family, as as the 'girl herself, are'blighted. We. need not stop to consider whether it is' right or wrong for the worM and society to deal more lenil entIy with the man than the woman for such offenses against virtue apd chastity. There mayor may not be, reason-sound reason-for s'uch discrimination. The fact exists, and may be faken into consideration by you in: estimating the 'injury wbich tbefather has. sustained by,tbe seduction of his daughter. So that, in respect to !lamages, it maybe summed up in one general sentence or statement: That, if you find the defeUdllnt committed tbe wrong complained of, you may compensate the plaintiff, up to the limit claimed in his declaration, for all that he. as a father, may have felt and' suffered for the wrong and injury he bas received in the ruin of his. daughter. Your first duty is to determime the question whether the defendaJ;lt committed the act charged against him. Upon that branch of tbe case do, not allow your sympathy orprejudjce to I'Ul;l away with yOU)i but, when you shall have found that fact, then this court cheerfully le/tves to your determinatien wbat compensation you shall give to tbe injure<;l fatber, and tells you that in awarding damages for his wounded feelings, bis mental. sufferings, bis anxiety,his humiliation, and his sense of honor, you may go up to the very limits of the amount claimed by the plaintiff in his declaration. , Now, gentl'emen, take the case and consider :,t. I do not tbink of anything else to wbich your attention shouIa' be'caBell.

DIECKERHOFF

and others v.

ROBERTSON.

(Circuit Court, S. D. New York. A'ugust 16,1887,'
CuSTOMS DUTIES-AMENDMENT OF BILL OF PARTICULARS-SECTION

3012, REV. ST· . A bill of particulars, required by section 3012. Rev. St. U. S., in an action brought against a collector of customs to recover excessive duties, may, under that section, be amended by increasing the amounts of such duties therein claimed. in case of reasonable excuse for a bonafide mistake; but the specific cause of error or mistake should be shown, and why the original was not made in proper form.

This action was brought June 20, 1885, against the defendant to recover an alleged excess of duties exacted of plaintiffs by him as collector

74

FEDERAL REPORTER.

the abOve,action, it has been fOUnd I :that several errors have occurred in said billaf particulars, as will appear in,the annexed schedule marked "A;", that the ,figure.s .ncolum,n :N,o. 2 \ire tQ be the correct amounts, and should be substituted for those in column No. 1. and the bill of particulars amended accordiJ:!-gly.' :,_, " ,' """ '
, ,', "SdB:JIDtrLll: A ·

· !

of customs. Thereafter the plaintiffs, under section 3012, Rev. St., served a bill, of particulars of such duties claimed by them. Subsethat the amounts of such duties claimed by quently it was them in the case of five importation's was less than the real amounts exacted. -They thereup0n moved,the, court for permission to amend their bill of particulars by substituting the real amounts for the amounts claimed therein. The affidavit upon which this motion was based set , , ' That, in the' official adjustment of the items in the bill of particulars in
,I

,I

AMOUNT

AMOUNT NO.,2.

Oder France :..; Maln ..··; ;i.l".. J, ..: Rhein ....r' t........ · Werra ..;.. T',.:

, :....

'.............

;.:. , , ,..

Jply' 3, 1883 ' 6.1883 :, JIJly- '9;' 1883 ,1,883 ,3,1883

$ 10 00

2600

20850 '850 ,2Q 00

,J

$ 1900

i

34550 36 50 4125

1300

Edgar'Keteh-wm, for the motion; Stephen A. Walker, U. S. Atty., and Thomaa,(heenwood, Asst. U. S. !Atty. , ,; , , " '
i' , l '

.

j

"

i

!' ·

LACoMBEj J. This which is for l1ea ve to amend a bill of particuliirs in tiil action tOl'ecoverexcessof dutieS, may be best answered by'quOtii'l:g the'decision of Judge 'BROWN in Lwi; v.-Robertson, (filed August 5,1'887;)' : , ' , I : ' " " " ,
of partiCUlars may, I think, be '1I18.de- asinJ luryother case of, reasonable for a bona 'fide But the specific cause of error or mistake should be shown, and why thE! original r .)Valit, iJ).!P, for/'ijr ' T,h,It 'Y!,thin, aflhlavi,t, cient., Uallowed, It would in effect abolishs,ectiplJ. 3912 in part. " . ' _, ,

The affidavit th'is is is 'insufficient. 'Motion denied, without prejudice t.o a similar motion on additional affida', vits.

r '.,'

,''".

:·,H :.'

:

.,.i

'J(

i'

'I

. : ,Inc1'e CumtINGS,:

Oourt, 8. D.New YerM. Auguat18,:1887.)

1. IMMIGRATION-UNDER CONTRACT TO OF ACTS.

The act of congress of February 26,1885, and the'amendment thereto of February 23,1887, clearly prohibit the immigration of aliens under a ,contract to labor in the United States, and an immigrant nnder auch a contract may be prevented from landing. Th,e claim that only the peraons soliciting or encouraging the immigration' are affected by the acts cannot be sustained.

An immigrant arri'l'ing,in this country, under a,contr,ootto, labor on a da,i,ry farm, the product of which, or a part thereof, forms ,an article of dise that competes with others in a similar 'b!lsiness,' and whose passage nere has been paid by the agent of the employer, is nat within the exception under the act of of 1881$, § 5, which providel\ that the prohibition therein con,tained shall not apply to persons employed strictly as personal ()r domestic servants, etc. ' 3. SAME-EFFECT OF COLJ,EOTOtl's DECISION-SECOND'HEARlNG. The decision of the collector upon the 8tatUIJ of an immigrant whose right to land in the United Statet;l is c1)allenged on t1)e gro!lnd that he is nndl,'lr a contract to labor, is coricillsive, and not open to rev.lew in the courts on haM@' C01'1lU8, if there wali competent evidence before the collector on which to exercise hisnfudgment; and, if habeas corpUIJproceedings are resorted to. and facts not previously placed before the cClllector 'therein disclosed, the whole case may' afterwards be again presented tothe,collector. ' .'

2. SAME-ExOEPTION OF PERBONALAND DOMESTIC SERVANTS-FARM LABORER.

Writ,of.Habeas Cory'U8.' I ;. Harrington Putnam, for Qummings. Stephen A. Walker, U. S. Atty., and Abram J. Rose, Asst. U. S. Atty.,
for the collector. LACOMBE, J. The relator, Matthew Cummings, is an alien, and arrived here on the steam-ship Anchoria.Before sailing, a contract was made through one Latt..1, on behalf lawyer of Flemingsburgh, Kentucky; that Cumn1ings 'was tei labor for him in Kentucky asfa,l;'Ill serv,ant or dair,Y, ,a"n",l, .and the passa"g",e m,', o"ne,Y,' o.f Cummings and m his rfumily was paid by,'Latta··' . dairyIl;lan'; ,the relator wO!1ld have charga of aher<l of 25 J erseYis. collectPr, t11>On the facts pefore him, has determined that Cummings was prohibited from landing, under the act$ofcongress of February 26,1885, aqdFebruary 23,1887., Under stipulation, the immediate return of CQmmingswas delayed in order to allow of the presentation ofadditional facts' as to character ofservice he :was to. render, which (apts have,beElll interrogatories to his employer in Kentucky. In behalf of the relator it is (', : 1; That 'the act contains nopuni,shinent l,tgainst the immigrantjthat no person other than those .soliciting andeticouraging the immigration are :within the. theb,ctj and that, therefore, the amendatory8.ct ofl887, whicb.Qlliects that thei.mmigrantsshall be eeI:l.t back to the nations from which they came, provides 11 penalty for one who has committed no offense, and is therefore void., The acts are inartificially drawn, but, interpreted together, they plaInly indicate an intention on