![]() The goods varied in weight, and the plaintiff claimed that a portion of the invoice, which weighed more than thirty-three kilogrammes, or about eighty pounds per dozen, were not "tanned calfskins" within the meaning of the Tariff Act of 1861, but an article known in trade and commerce as "kipskins," and thus liable only to the duty levied on all "upper leather except tanned calfskins." Several leather dealers and shoemakers testified, on behalf of plaintiff, that any skin weighing over forty-five pounds to the dozen is a kipskin, and so called by the trade. The goods in question were the manufacture of Agereau Freres, of Vernon, France, and were invoiced as "veaux cires" or waxed calfskins, and the duty imposed upon tanned calfskins was exacted by the Custom-house. ![]() This was an action to recover an alleged excess of duty paid to the defendant, as Collector of this Port, under protest. The plaintiff appealed, contending that there was no failure of consideration, inasmuch as there had been no demand made for the execution of the satisfaction piece that, in any event, there was only a partial failure, the maker having his remedy in an action at law.Īlfred Roe for plaintiff Sessions & Bond for defendants. The case was referred, and the referee found in favor of the maker, on the agreement to furnish the satisfaction piece, and against him on the question of damages, and dismissed the complaint, not finding at all upon the issues raised ay the indorser. One of the indorsers defended on the ground that a guaranty had been written over his signature after it was written. This was an action against the maker and indorsers of a promissory note, the indorsers being sued as guarantors. Fullerton, for plaintiff John Graham, for defendant. Bell, the conduct of certain newspapers in publishing the case so extensively would give her the greatest advertisement she ever had, and thus increase her business instead of injuring it. In summing up, counsel for the defence contended that the witness for the plaintiff had been actuated more with a desire to ruin the business of Madame Bell than anything else, and asked "What married man will now go to Madame Bell's house?" Counsel also asserted, that shame though it was to say so, married men constituted, by far, the most numerous and profitable class of patrons of houses of prostitution.Ĭounsel for the plaintiff said that so far from injuring the business of Madame.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |