Lapas attēli

gns and printed with the names and addresses of merchants, are not iable as paper, under Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule M,

402, 30 Stat. 189 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1672), but as manufactures paper, under paragraph 407, 30 Stat. 189 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1673.] Application for Review of a Decision of the Board of United General Appraisers. decision below, see G. A. 6,260 (T. D. 26,992), which reversed the nent of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New

sgood Nichols, Asst. U. S. Atty. liam B. Dungan, for importers. ZEL, District Judge. The merchandise consists of sheets of padifferent sizes, the centers of some of which are plain, with perd and embossed border in resemblance of a lace pattern, sheets of ated paper with the name and address of a merchant printed on, perforated paper for decorating raisin boxes, and confetti ed from large sheets of paper. Duty was assessed thereon by the tor at 35 per centum ad valorem, under paragraph 407 of the act 97 (Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule M, par. 403, 30 Stat. 189 . Comp. St. 1901, p. 1673]), as manufactures of paper, or of which · is the component material of chief value. The importers pro1 and claimed that the goods were dutiable at 25 per centum, under graph 402, as paper not specially provided for, or as printed matinder paragraph 403, or as surface-coated paper, under paragraph

The Board of General Appraisers decided that the doilies, lace and vinetas, which have no printing thereon, and the confetti, were les manufactured from paper, and dutiable under paragraph 407, e the so-called lace paper, top and side pieces for raisin boxes or ons, and doilies, with printing thereon, were dutiable, under parah 403, as printed matter. The government has made application review to this court. cliance is placed by the United States Attorney upon the case of ut v. United States (C. C.) 134 Fed. 701, affirmed 142 Fed. 1037, 71 . A. 684, in support of the contention that the articles are in fact ufactures of paper, and not printed matter. The importers urge the printing on the paper bags in the Kraut Case was merely inntal, and did not to any extent affect their usefulness as bags, le in this case the purpose of printing upon the lace papers the name the merchant using the same was to advertise the commodity to ich they were applied as wrappers, covers, or side pieces of wraps. The facts, however, do not sustain this contention. The primal ect of the lace paper is the ornamentation or decorative feature. The ofs show that the articles are manufactured by placing sheets of the ired quality of paper under a steel die, and the figures, designs, or, e patterns are produced by being stamped or cut with the press. is operation is not thought to come within the category of "printing,” that term is defined in Arthur v. Moller, 97 U. S. 365, 24 L. Ed. 1046. he facts show that the raw paper is the article of chief cost in the finned product; the cost of stamping being about 25 per cent., and the arket price of the importation is estimated at treble the cost of manufacture. The finished articles are used as doilies, covers, wrappers

for raisins, side and end pieces of raisin wrappers or confectioners' supplies. The articles have been materially changed from paper. They have in fact lost their character of paper, and the printing on the exhibits, considering their primal purpose, is a subordinate feature. They are essentially different from labels or visiting cards having printed matter, ornamentation, or finished borders thereon, which manifestly serve an entirely different purpose, and the printing unquestionably is the important feature. Hence, this case is thought to be controlled by the principle of the Kraut Case.

The decision of the board, therefore, is modified, and the conclusion of the collector on the specified articles approved.

UNITED STATES V. THREE PACKAGES OF DISTILLED SPIRITS. (District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. March 22, 1907.)

No. 7 of 1904.


An information for a forfeiture of distilled spirits for violation of Rev. St. $$ 3289, 3455 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 2132, 2279), held bad on demur. rer, as not sufficiently definite to disclose to the court or claimant the precise nature of the act charged to be a violation of the statute.

(Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 29, Internal Revenue, $ 133.)

On Demurrer to Amended Information for Forfeiture.

J. Whitaker Thompson and Walter C. Douglas, Jr., for the United States.

Furth & Singer, for claimants.

J. B. McPHERSON, District Judge. The amended information now before the court, which seeks to forfeit three packages of distilled spirits for alleged violation of the revenue laws, contains three counts, of which the first count need not be considered, since the government concedes it to be demurrable. The second and third counts are as follows:

"(2) For that heretofore, to wit, prior to the seizure of the said three packages, they and each of them were then and there so stamped, branded, and marked as to show that their contents were distilled spirits manufactured by the Philadelphia Pure Rye Whisky Distilling Company, and had been duly inspected, and that all the provisions of the internal revenue laws in respect to the same had been complied with; whereas the said packages then and there contained something else than the contents which were therein when the said packages had been so lawfully stamped, branded, and marked by an officer of the revenue, to wit, compound liquor, manufactured by the mixing and compounding of distilled spirits with caramel, also called burnt sugar, and the said packages, then and there stamped, marked, and branded as aforesaid, with their contents as aforesaid, were on the 2d day of March, A. D. 1904, sold and shipped by the said Abe Strouse and Elias Wineland, trading as aforesaid, unto one John Birkian. Wherefore the said three packages and their contents are forfeitable to the United States by virtue of section 3455 of the Revised Statutes.

r that heretofore, to wit, prior to the seizure of the said three packcain distilled spirits, to wit, a compound liquor manufactured by the nd compounding of distilled spirits with caramel, also called burnt su

found in each of said three packages, each of said packages then and ataining five gallons or more of said compound distilled spirits, with ng thereon the marks and stamps required therefor by law, to wit, aps and marks for rectified its. Wherefore said packages are le to the United States by virtue of section 3289 of the Revised Stat

nese counts the claimants have assigned the following grounds urrer: hat the second article of said amended information is indefinite, obague, and uncertain, in that it is not macie clear whether the 'some se' which is alleged to have been in the packages aforesaid at the ey were sold and shipped by the said Abe Strouse and Elias Wineading as aforesaid, was a compound liquor manufactured by the mixh caramel, or burnt sugar, of other distilled spirits than the distilled which were originally inspected in said packages, or whether the ing else' referred to, and alleged to be a compound liquor, consisted

the distilled spirits which had originally been inspected in said packo which there had been added carainel, or burnt sugar. That the third article in said amended information is indefinite, ob vague, and uncertain, in that it is not made clear whether the comliquor alleged to have been manufactured by the mixing of distilled with caramel, or burnt sugar, and charged to have been found in each d three packages, consisted of other distilled spirits than the distilled

which were originally inspected in said packages, to which burnt sugar camel had been added, or whether it referred to the distilled spirits were originally inspected in said packages, to which caramel or burnt had been added."

is apparent, I think, that the demurrer must be sustained. The mation is certainly capable of being construed to charge that the nants mixed caramel or burnt sugar with other spirits than the or received from the distilling company, using for this purpose the cages in which the spirits that came from the distillery had been, vere, contained. The claimants admit that, if the proof sustained charge, a good ground for forfeiture would be established. But information is also capable of being construed to charge that the or found in the packages when they were seized was compounded mixing caramel or burnt sugar with the very spirits that were eived from the distilling company, and that the compounding took ce in the packages thus received. It is clear, from the argument of

United States attorney, that the government desires to raise the estion whether the mixing of caramel or burnt sugar with distilled rits, without affixing the stamps required when liquor is rectified, nes within the purview of the third paragraph of section 3244 of · Revised Statutes (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2096), and especially thin the final clause of the paragraph, which declares that:

• Every person who, without rectifying, purifying, or refining dis. led spirits, shall, by mixing such spirits, wine, or other liquor with any iterials, manufacture any spurious, imitation, or compound liquors for sale, der the name of whiskey, brandy, gin, rum, wine, spirits, cordials, or wine tters, or any other name, shall be regarded as a rectifier, and as being enged in the business of rectifying."

[ocr errors]

In the information as it stands, I agree with the claimants that this question is not raised with sufficient distinctness to justify the court in deciding it, or to enable the claimants to be certain that they will not be called upon at the trial to meet any other charge than this.

It is therefore ordered that the demurrer be sustained, but leave · is granted to the government to file an amended information within 10 days.


(District Court, E. D. New York. March 25, 1907.) 1. BANKRUPTCY-COMPOSITION.

A composition offered by a bankrupt and accepted by the requisite num

ber of creditors considered and confirmed. 2. SAME-Costs-ATTORNEY'S FEES.

Where a composition offered by a bankrupt wbich includes the payment of all costs is confirmed after opposition, the bankrupt's attorney will not be allowed fees from the estate for his services in securing the confirmation. In Bankruptcy. On motion to confirm composition. Bernard G. Barton, for bankrupt. Abr. A. Silberberg, opposed."

CHATFIELD, District Judge. A composition on a certain basis has been proposed, and between 50 and 60 per cent. of the creditors in amount have consented. Over 90 per cent. in number have consented; but, with one or two exceptions, the consenting creditors are creditors in small amounts. One of the two largest creditors is opposed. It may be questioned whether small creditors generally oppose as quickly as large, both because there is not so much involved, and because a large creditor can afford to pay the cost of opposition, as his saving, if any, would be greater. But the chief items about which argument is presented show an entirely different method of computation by the special commissioner and by the objecting creditors. The difference in the amount of the estate as estimated by the opposing parties arises as follows:

Special Objecting

Commissioner. Creditors. Outstanding accounts stated to be......

$2,192 66 Of which bankrupt and special commissioner consider collectible.

$1,137 70 Sales made by trustee and receiver.

3,843 43 Of which receiver has on ·hand, net.

900 00 Stock of paints, wall paper, etc...

2,669 60 Furniture, horse, and wagon.

[ocr errors]

850 00 For which bankrupt and special master estimate amount to be realized...

2,000 00 $4,037 70 $9,555 69

The bankrupt makes an offer aggregating $3,772.49, together with the expenses and compensation of the various parties and officers who are entitled to compensation out of the estate. The largest item of

difference, that between the amount of sales and the cash now in the hands of the trustee, is a matter to be considered at the time of the submission of the trustee's account. If the trustee has but $900, net, on hand, the balance must have been paid out by the trustee during the continuance of the business, and cannot be charged against the bankrupt on an offer of compromise. Perhaps more could have been realized by an earlier sale, but this is not an objection to the composition.

As to the difference in bills receivable, the objecting creditors show nothing except that they state generally that the accounts were owed by the same persons to whom the receiver and trustee is now giving credit, and the bankrupt testified that these accounts were not closed up by the trustee. The evidence on which the report was made seems to have been the statements of the bankrupt and trustee that approximately $1,130 of these accounts were good; and gendral criticism of the estimate, without pointing out any errors, is not convincing.

The other item, viz., $2,000 for the sales value of goods appraised by Mr. Fitzsimmons at $3,519.60, including the fixtures and horse and wagon, on its face appears to be small; but an examination of the testimony shows that most of this stock consists of broken lots of wall paper, paint, etc., which (especiallythe wall paper) have been in stock since last year, and even at auction would not find a ready sale. It seems reasonable that small lots of wall paper, of patterns not like patterns in present use, would bring greatly reduced prices at any kind of a sale.

Under these circumstances, and taking all of the items into consideration, and considering also that the business has been conducted since this question of a composition was first suggested, so that the value of the stock has certainly not increased, it seems that the report of the special commissioner should be confirmed, the specifications of objection dismissed, and the composition approved.

The attorney for the bankrupt has asked for an allowance in lieu of costs, in case he should prevail in having the composition confirmed. There is abundant authority to show that the court can allow costs in its discretion; but when the bankrupt offered a composition, under the circumstances, he must have known that he might meet with opposition, and on all the record it is impossible to hold that the opposition was unreasonable and without foundation,

The bankrupt must therefore pay his own attorney for his services with respect to these objections, and the application for costs will be denied.

(Circuit Court, D. Rhode Island. March 26, 1907.)

No. 2,760.

A guest occupying rooms in a hotel with his family cannot be held liable to the landlord for permitting a nurse in his employ to remain in such rooms and to be there delivered of an illegitimate child; any scandal arising from the affair, which may have resulted in injury to the land.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »