*1 v. Packages States of Goods. United Sixty-seven Dry disconnected with the of it being equally patent corrected of it have no reissued the can effect on patent óf claim the plaintiff. We think the court also erred in to “We saying jury, verdict, instruct that in each must be ease, you your defendants.” This, as well as the two noticed, instructions above took facts from the which it was their to examine jury province determine, It determine. of from right jury in the case, claim, facts whether including specifications, so enable as to skilled in the structure precise person any machines, of to make the one described. This the statute and of this are requires, jury judge. invention, The are also of the jury judge novelty whether renewed is for the same invention as patent determine whether the original patent; they has abandoned to the invention been There are other public. of fact which questions come within the of a province jury; such of the machine used identity defendant with that plaintiff’s, whether have been constructed and act on the same principle. reversed, The and the cause is remanded to the judgment circuit court for further proceedings.
Order. This cause on to came heard on the transcript record from the circuit court of the United States for the east ern district and was Pennsylvania, counsel. On argued by whereof, it consideration is now here ordered adjudged by , that the said court circuit in this be and- the same reversed, cause hereby costs; be and this cause the same remanded to the hereby court; said circuit with directions award a venire de facias novo. Sixty-seven in error, Plaintiffs v. Packages Dry Levois, Goods. Jules Claimant. section 22,) The 66th Large, the act which declares at ch'. Stat. t>77, “.if have made in of which been wares, merchandise, shajl the office of according cost theveof, not collector, be'invoiced to "the place- evade the any part n such goods, all thereof, rnak- or the to be recovered &c., thereof, person XVII. VOL. has in the act shall be ing forfeited,” repealed by any in full force and effect. but stili exists or in acts, from, error, writ of the circuit case was up, brought This the eastern United States for district Louisiana. court *2 filed in the district of information was A libel by' behalf of Orleans, himself and New port collector States, for the condemnation and United sixty- oh account of an fraud alleged seven goods, packages information, other revenue, among things, charging, custom-house, at the entered prQ- were that goods invoiced at a invoice, which were less in duction of sum they cost thereof at the than evade the duties. Orleans, filed a claim to the Levois, of New Jules March, 1850, when the for trial cause came jury, the under the instructions court, found verdict for the claimant. Fmton, taken Mr. distrie L A bill of exceptions short, inserted, States, which, is here of United being attorney as — follows: trial this cause the remembered, that on the it plaintiff Be documents, numbered as in evidence the offered follows: following — of five with extract invoice. 1. Warehouse packages
No. entry “ 2. sixty-two packages. Import Report “ of United States 3. appraisers. valuation. United States 4. appraiser’s do. 5. Merchant appraiser’s 6: propounded by Copy interrogatories appraisers P. D. Duval. “ 7. Call for letters. (cid:127) “ 8. Call for 9. Letter from interrogatories. reply “ “ Mr. Duval to United States appraisers. in case No. 81. 10. found by appraisers Paper Invoice-in which'the entries were made. 11. — were introduced: witnesses following that he was one of the stated Canfield, J. who R. appraisers Orleans, the several of New docu- proved the custom-house Duval, that P. D. evidence; offered partner ments at the claimant, custom-house; made the his agent stated that to answer the refusal interrogatories propounded; he familiar as with the valua- his from experience appraiser, as were contained in the cost of such invoice tion and goods that the made; stated the entries were were goods on which believed, as he less cost, than the actual at less their than actual value in the market from whence foreign were the extent shown the- imported, offered in valuation evidence; that he had made a examination of the particular several seized. He that packages proved marked paper No. 10 was found in case No. and that appraisers, that, same articles contained in were invoiced at paper Simms, A. Duthel, Philip Letchford, E. D. Mr. Hyde, also introduced as witnesses on all part of whom were merchants of New Orleans, importing city and had like seized, as from imported those Liverpool, about the same time; some had received importations by same out those in all of them ship brought controversy; confirmed the merchants’ valuation, as shown in No. paper and concurred in that the said were invoiced at saying least the centum lower than actual cost or value in twenty-five per market. cotton It was had foreign proven advanced and summer of 1849. Mr. during spring Eifflard said, that all of the in the invoice were invoiced at less them, than the actual ten or fifteen the court instructed the value; some not more than however, in his And per judgment. — follows, jury namely: *3 1. That 66th section of the act of of the 2d congress March, 1799, in so far as it of forfeiture imposes penalty wares, merchandise, and of which shall have any goods, collector, been made in the office of a and which shall not thereof, to the actual cost is inconsistent according with, to, and and 15th sections the ct of 1st 13th repugnant 1823, March, on additional-duties imposing penalty incon- ; entered under fraudulent invoice and in so far as said existed, was and the said act of 1799 sistency repugnancy said of 1823. repealed by of the 2d 2. That said 66th section of the act. of congress aforesaid, March, 1799, was, to the same extent as repugnant with, the act. of 30th to, and inconsistent the 17th section of 1842, is, extent, same said act August, repealed by of 1842. 17th 3. That the directed and authorized by proceedings United 1843, section of the act of proved having by therein the merchandise have taken place against to be forfeited to the it was the duty government, alleged vyhicli, collector to have levied and collected the additional duty section, which said 17th as a penalty by shall be imposed estimated, and ascertained appraised, exceed. with, is inconsistent invoice value that said repug- penalty forfeitures, nant as to, preced- imposed by any penalty 1842, section of said act of law of that the said congress; ing United States act, do, of said last-named sections by implication, the other of all acts congress all imposing previous provisions
repeal of merchandise which valued of forfeiture falsely the penalty the actual cost has not been or of which stated under which their entry invoice .made. there at was no law present also instructed jury And of the said the forfeiture for the causes force authorizing To which instructions and in the libel. charge, set forth this bill their except, pray attorney, record; which is done. sealed, and entered bemay signed, Theo. H. (Signed) McCaleb, [Seal.] United States Judge. on for trial before the circuit 1853, the cause came In May, the district States, when of the United judgment court court affirmed. case to this court. of error A writ brought for the Mr. Gushing (attorney-general) It argued by States. No counsel appeared appellee. of the act of March reviewed provisions Mr. Cushing at ch. sections, Stat. Large, 13th and 15th (3 2,) 1842,' act of 30th Stat. 17th section of the August, and then with the proceeded argu- ch. Large, 270,) ment. on as of the statutes relied are the repealing, Such of the act of 66th section' implication, enacts said.66th section the forfeit- be noted that the It is to thereof,” of the' or the value ure of goods, office, with to evade been made in the collector’s have thereof.” But whether the the duties thereupon, any part as shall not seize collector shall or prosecute the duties forfeited, or shall collect and receive arising upon merchants to be valuation, ascertained two reputable when section, in that 66th for that as required purpose, appointed discretion of the collector. If left to the matters thereof, a forfeiture for retains the he prosecutes act, it is his own he acts at his thereof, or the which .he will be peril; *4 -if he mis- damages, responsible personally and without seizes, prob- by wrong, judges prosecutes “ to the duties of evade cause, able an allegation design the which quo animo with entry goods, thereupon.” cost, shall have been actual invoiced to their not according duties, the offence for constitute made, the to evade the design value is declared in or their the forfeiture of the goods must a collector incur section. this 66th The hazard which DFCEMBER Good; v. of forfeiture, is not forefended by personally, prosecuting by made the two merchants, because appraisement by reputable shall to “such not construed appraisement exclude other of the the of trial real cost the said proof Moreover, at the not the two place exportation.” merchants are “ the to as to to inquire evade the duties.” design section, this 66th to be to By paid according valuation such as shall be ascertained, not according value, if the collector deem it does not expedient for a So, forfeiture. under the acts of 1823 and 1842, prosecute relied the collector has an election to for a for- upon, prosecute “ not, feiture or evade the duties.” upon allegation design elects If he not so to then have he must collected prosecute, the act 1823, 1842, under or the act of the additional under centum. fifty duty per So 9th 19,1828, section the act at Stat. (4 May, 274,*ch. an additional Large, per 55,) imposed duty fifty if at the time value of the appraised pur- chased, and from which were into the imported ten centum. exceed invoiced value per Yet this statute not take of the collector did election away value, for a forfeiture of the or their under prosecute goods, the 66th 1799, if, section of the in his opinion, had been entered at the an invoice under- custom-house, upon them, “with to evade the duties valuing thereupon, design thereof.” any part In act of 30th Stat. at ch. July, Large, sec. it is made of the collector to dutiable 8,) cause value of to be and estimated and ascer- imports appraised tained in accordance with the laws existing if the thereof exceed, should ten centum appraised per more, then, value so declared addition same, levied, the duties on the there shall be law imposed by collected, and ad valorem on centum paid, duty twenty per This, such elec- value.” act does not appraised take away tion collector to for a prosecute, value, or their under section of act of 66th his he can sustain charge, undervaluation, entered evade the duties design thereof.” any part The statutes which an additional impose (or penal) duty, case the exceeds estimated ascertained value of the goods value, certain centum their declared per col
with the as a collector, do require, prerequisite lection such additional that the (or penal) duty, have been made to evade the duties thereupon.’5 8* *5 Packages Dry Sixty-seven of v. States 1799, defines a the act of offence of higher section The 66th of that the the laws-;it requires revenue the against shall have upon,” “ to evade the duties there been made with design the the forfeiture for -such inflicts of. design goods,
“ for thereof,” if the collector prosecute or the value establish such design. States, term, The United of Wood v. In case January the of the the 66th question repeal Pet. 363-366,) out act of the sub by implication, arising section of sequent statutes, discussed, taken position fully every is, effect, It is the district court useless the to negatived. judge case, the in this than that decided principles more say the acts United States are of 1842 Wood v. The applicable have been these to that although passed subsequently court. decision of the supreme There is no between positive provisions repugnancy of 1799, and those of the affirmative, the 66th section subsequent are new cumulative, laws. These laws merely section of the act of 1799 not to the 66th inconsis- auxiliary value, tent a forfeiture of the or their where an with the office of the collector with shall have made design .in thereof.” to evade the duties There part any statutes, of 1799, to the act subsequent nothing compel additional duties, receive the collector to demand and with the cases, duties, in are where entered for penal undervalue, to evade the duties at an there- duty upon, prosecuting design ” inhibit thereof; nor to the collector from part value. for or their goods, in the 66th section intended to The suppress acts fraud the revenue. The other to be designed is no to the same There between purpose. repugnance auxiliary latter, former, and to construe the provisions; repealing to aid in the would be to construe detection of fraud fraud, down such a manner as promote cutting provis- character, ions of a far more and essen- important general tial of the revenue.” Wood The United v. security States, Pet. 366. delivered the of.the NELSON court. opinion Mr. Justice couH of error to circuit the United This is a writ of Louisiana. district the' eastern was filed in district A libel information Orleans, on behalf of of New himself and collector of port condemnation and forfeiture sixty- on, of an seven account fraud alleged packages révenue, information, other things, charging, among Goods- United Stetes at the custom-house upon were entered pro- were invoiced at in which duction of less than the actual' cost thereof at the sum to evade the duties. trial, after evidence was On given part *6 in the information, libellants to the facts charged tending prove court that the 66th section the jury, the act of 1799 was charged duty statutes, force of subsequent repealed by that, and there no in existence law present, providing for a forfeiture of the for the causes set forth in the libel. goods found, The for the claimant. jury accordingly, This was carried on error to the circuit where ruling was affirmed. The 1799, 66th section of the act of so far as it is material — case, is follows: .as “ That if wares, merchandise, or of which any goods, entry shall have been made be of collector, in the office of a shall not to the actual cost thereof at the According with to evade the duties or any thereof, all such re- &c., thereof, or to be part covered shall be forfeited.” person making entry, held, States, It was in the case of Wood the United against 342, 16 Pet. which was an information founded section, that it was force, then in there seized property was condemned under it. The entered at the custom-house in 1839 and 1840. The in that case had been act duty' which has since been to passed, supposed operate section, (cid:127)repeal implication. The 19th section of that act is relied on, which is as mainly — follows: if That shall person knowingly intent wilfully, to defraud the revenue of the United States, or clan- smuggle introduce into the destinely &c., sub- any goods, law, to and which should have been ject duty by invoiced, without or shall paying make accounting out, or duty, pass, attempt pass, the custom-house, through any false, invoice, such forged, his, her, every person, or their fraudulent abettors, aiders and &c., shall be deemed of misdemeanor, guilty fine punishable by imprisonment.” The invoice mentioned in the two sections 66th and (the 19th) ais document in the very important passing at the custom-house. The 36th section of the act of made it the duty person collector the making" produce original invoice, in the same state in which it was received; also, to make oath that it was true, re- invoice genuine, only received, it was ceiyed, and in the state in which other invoice did know or account the deponent that Apd from that the 1st section' different produced. of of further that no act provided, goods subject the unless the invoice should be admitted original
to duty The collector. same same was presented qf of the act 1st section found the last act also the oath sub- prescribes 4th section to, in the act of above referred like the one stantially somewhat enlarged. except in the case of sub- The 4th section that should be found to any package duty, ject provided, described in the same should article not contain an modified 21st section of be forfeited. This provision forfeiture, if the act of saves appraisers the be invoice was not the omission opinion fraudulent design. acts is to the several sufficient to show This brief reference document, attached to this the collection of securing great importance foreign importations, proper to insure the been taken the the care that has production great one, true, it should collector genuine, *7 it condition in which was received in the actual state and by be the 1799, owner, or the making entry. agent consignee, of act- of this Now, the 66th section the with dealing document, the entered at the custom- forfeits party to the actual thereof at house, cost not according evade of with to duties.” the a the place design exportation, 19th of the act of 1842 the to a The section subjects party misdemeanor, such, as concerned in an making punishable who, revenue, out, to defraud the shall make with intent custom-house, false, or or to the pass, pass, attempt through or invoice.” fraudulent forged, The to the as ma- former section has reference invoice so far terial to a forfeiture, determine with to the the view simply to cost the one or not. under the article at the of without regard the itself is the document true question whether genuine If the described in the invoice are invoiced stated, value, the the takes cost with design The in is to frauds the revenue place. prevent object the of custom-house, means this passing goods through by device, at an undervaluation. The the different, latter and has to reference frauds that to committed in pass may passing attempting the the of invoices not the. production genuine; true, invoices, but those made out for the occasion original a to collector and officers. the other impose upon of to 1799 and 1823 The acts of sought species prevent the fraud, the requiring by production it true, that was the oath the superadded, genuine, party in received, one and in the actual state which it was re- only This, to the ceived. subjected although party penalty case of false seems not to in have afforded swearing, perjury, first, for the protection; present necessary provision, time, enacted, has been to a misdemeanor subjecting person shall, to the revenue, who with intent defraud make out or to the custom-house attempt false, pass, pass, through invoice,” or fraudulent directed forged, manifestly against use of simulated invoices, and those production made fraudulently for purpose officers imposing upon making the entry. whole section confirms this scope It first view. makes the of dutiable into the mis- smuggling country and, demeanor them secondly, passing attempt pass custom-house, with intent defraud the through revenue, false, means of or fraudulent invoices; the latter is forged, an of which, result, offence effect much akin to that very done under color of except to the smuggling, conformity lav of the customs. regulations In our laws, revenue interpretation which system and contains numerous very complicated, guard frauds this court has not . importers, been against disposed to implication, the same but have been inclined is congress; the rule with strictness which apply repeals statute prior one has’ unere made subsequent provision upon' some from subject, differing respect former, both, unless the uphold repugnancy clear and so as to leave no doubt positive, intent of cases where new have especially may lav old, in aid of auxiliary effectually more purpose the. the fraud. This is the against doctrine guarding be found in the case of Wood v. re already to, ferred and in several cases. 3 How. subsequent 197; 16 Ib. 150. It has been that the 8th section supposed present additional imposes twenty per undervaluation, works a 66th section of repeal *8 act of But has 1799. been provision of the revenue part 1818, e er since the act of with the of a system exception few and been has never understood have the effect years, claimed. theOn the section been has as force, contrary, and regarded has this time, all practical operation notwith- during of other additional It was standing considered in the imposition so duty. v. The case Wood This States. additional’ in case duty imposed exceeds appraised
94
ten
the invoice
per
price
irrespective
intent.
if this
of fraudulent
addi-
the question
Undoubtedly,
levied
tional
has been
duty
upon
goods by
government,
but,
66th
if the
section;
forfeit them under the
collector
it cannot
is satisfied that
in the invoice has been
undervaluation
duties,
to evade the
instead of
made with intent
levying
a forfeiture
be declared.
It will be ob-
additional duty,
may
be
served, also, that
the forfeiture
declared in cases of
may
is less than ten
centum of
undervaluation where it
voice
the in-
per
exists.
the fraudulent design
price, provided
1842,
We
satisfied
there is no
in the act of
acts,
as
66th
repeal
operating
it still exists in full
1799,
section of the act
but that
force
of the court below must
and effect. The
therefore
reversed,
and-record remitted for further
in con-
proceedings,
to this
formity
opinion.
dissented.
Mr. Justice CAMPBELL
This
in a series of cases
succession of
arising upon
frauds
a combination of
persons England
perpetrated by
determined, that the 66th section of the act of
this country,
1830,
act of
1799, and the 4th section
modified
act of
the 14th section of the
formed harmonious
the
but
repugnant,
frauds
system
prevention
upon
3
Ib.
211;
revenue.
Order. came on to be heard on the This cause of the record transcript from the court of United States for circuit the eastern dis- Louisiana, trict of counsel. On considera- argued by it here ordered and whereof, tion is now this adjudged by of the said-circuit court in this cause this reversed, same is cause be and the hereby remanded to the said circuit court for further same hereby to be had therein in proceedings conformity opinion court.