Zeh v. Cadwalader
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania
At' Law. This was a suit brought for the recovery of certain customs duties alleged to have been unlawfully exacted upon certain earthenware, mugs, cups, saucers and plates claimed by the plaintiffs to be dutiable at the rate of 35 per cent, as toys, under paragraph 425, Tariff Tndex, (Yew.) the appraiser having returned them as decorated earthenware at 60 peí’ cent, under paragraph 125, Tariff Index, (Yew.) The samples produced upon the trial of the importation consisted of…
Read the full summary
At' Law. This was a suit brought for the recovery of certain customs duties alleged to have been unlawfully exacted upon certain earthenware, mugs, cups, saucers and plates claimed by the plaintiffs to be dutiable at the rate of 35 per cent, as toys, under paragraph 425, Tariff Tndex, (Yew.) the appraiser having returned them as decorated earthenware at 60 peí’ cent, under paragraph 125, Tariff Index, (Yew.) The samples produced upon the trial of the importation consisted of A B C cups and plates, so-called tea muffins, decorated and fancy mugs, and plates. Upon the trial, the testimony of…
1Opinion of the Court
ButleR, J.,
(charging jury.') The defendant asks the court to charge you on certain points, the first of which is as follows: “1. If you believe the goods in question are bought, sold, and used as earthen, stone, or crockery ware, and not as toys, then your verdict should be for the defendant.” That is correct. “2. If you believe the articles in question on March 3, 1888, and prior thereto, were commercially known and designated as earthenware, and if you believe that they were not at that time described and designated as toys, then it is immaterial how they have since been known and…
2Cited by2 opinions
- People v. Del GardoNew York City Magistrates' Court · 1955
- United States v. SchwartzU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1896