. FEDERAL REPORTER.
it. But my,impr.ession is' that that is discretionary with the, board; that they may make' inquiry by what they deem to be proper ways and means; and that the importer must rely upon their fairness and judgment ltstowhattestimony theyido take, and the weight they give to it; that the fact that the importer was not iMormed who the witnesses were, and what they testified to" and· given an opportunity to cross-examine them, and an opportunity to meet 'it, does not constitute a valid objection against'the reappraisement. · I do not think we have competent proof here to be submitted to the jury tending ,to show that the genera!Lappraiser and merchant appraiser weresdhainpered by/instruciionsas to what they were to consider, and theweight;they were to give 'to the ,evidence, and the evidencethey should taketthat, they did, not do what they saw fit about it. I think that the board'bad,ra, perfect right to do what they thought was nt,and nobody elsa'hl'ld:a:ny;right to control them:inimy way. If there was evidence to sbow'that they, were .hampered ,by inst.iuctions in any way, and did not rreelyiexercise theirownjudgnient, I should 'think the impo'rters did not baveagood reappraisement,' ,But every such thing is dllnied. They were SWOrD,' and they met, and: they acted just as they 'sawfitjso far I think as this evidence .; i ' ,On the ,testimony: presented Mte"I see no way but to direct a verdict for the defendant, except as to the $10 paid to the collector as a fee for the merchantappl'aiser. '{thinktne; plaintiffs should have a verdict as to that. Verdi<lt directed accordingly.
",;CE'RTAIN
(District (JOU'l't,N. D. Illinois. March 14, 1887.) CUSTOMS D>UTIl!l,,-FORFEITURE 01' SMUGGLED GOODs-BONA FIDE PURCHASER. In iii J.>roceeding to forfeit goodll!.that have been smuggled into the United
States, If i,1; ilil shown that such goolis were ac!ually /ilm.uggled or brought in in fraud ofthe laws, the government WIll be entItled to a decree of forfeiture under section 12 oft'he ac1i'of congress of June 22,1874, notwithstanding thEl: cIl,I:,imant of such goodspqrchased them in fa,ithand for full ,:alu9/> l,!:,s&ection 16 of said. act. reqqiring the to a jury of tJ;1e distmcttand separate proposItion w:!iether the alleged acts were done wIth an actual jlltentionto defraud the government, and 'requiring, a special finding of the jury as to such fact. only means that the forfeiture cannot be enforced witb,outshowing that the goods were willfully and intentionally imported in fraud of the revenue laws, and has no application to a bona fide purchaser'to whom knowledge of their illicit character was not brought llome. '
W; G.EWing, U. S. Dist.AUy."for the UnitedStates J P. L. Sherman; for defendant. ' >
,
-:
!
This is a proceeding by information' to forfeitcertaiu diamonds, on.the grounds (1) that they1wereknowinglyand w.illfully
,BLODGE'J:vr, ,J.
UNITED STATES V. CERTAIN DIAMONDS.
365
smuggled and clandestinely introduced into'the United States, without payment of,duties, and with intent to· defraud the revenue of the United States; (2) that, being dutiable articles of merchandise, they were knowingly imported and brought into the United States with intent to defraud the revenue thereof, without being passed through the proper custom-house, and without being submitted for examination to the proper officers ofthe revenue. The 'diamonds in question were seized by the revenue officers of the United States at this port while in possession of one Jeremiah Monroe, and the'proof shows that they were smuggled into the United States in 1885 by one Harriet Lloyd, who sold them to Monroe for what is stated to have been about their cash value. Monroe bas appeared and intervened in this proceeding, and claimed the property; and only question is whether a forfeiture can be imposed as against him. ' The proor on the part of the government tends to show that Mrs. Lloyd told Monroe, before he bought the diamonds from her, that she had smuggled them into this country. This statement Monroe denies. I think the ,weight of'the testimony' is that Monroe knew, or at least had reasonable pause to believe. the goods were smuggled; but do not deem it necessary to decide the case On that point alone, as it is thepFoot; beyond that the diamonds in question were in factbr.ought into this country in fraud of the revenue laws, and that 1874, fact is sufficient, as I construe section 12 of the 'act of June usually called the "Moiety Act," to entitle the government to a decree of forfeiture, even if Monroe had purchased them in good faith, and paid full value, without notice or suspicion that they had been smuggled. CaldweU v. U. S., 8 How; 366; U. S. v. AUffmordt, 19 Fed. Rep. 893. The contention on the part of the claimant is that section 16 of the act of June 22,1874, w.hich requires the court, on the trial of any cause prosecuted to enforce or declare a forfeiture of goods, or recover the value thereof, to submit to a jury, as a distinct and separate proposition, whether the alleged acts were done with an intention to defraud the United States, and require a special finding of the jury as .to such fact, protects the bonafide purchaser of smuggled goods, unless knowledge of their illicit character is brought home to such purchaser; but I do not so construe this section, and think the true meaning of it is only that the United States cannot enforce a forfeiture of smuggled property without showing that it was willfully and intentionally imported in fraud of the revenue laws; nor can they recover the value of the property as a penalty fOr the frauduleIlt importation from a wrong-doer, if they shall electtosue for the value asa penalty, without such proofs; but in a suit for a forfeiture, which is a proceeding in rem against the smuggled goods, in his own interest, and claimsto proof that some person who own them; bought them. in, good faith, without notice that they were fraudulently imported, cannot be allowed to defeat the suit. A decree offorfeiture win., be entered. ' .
366
FEDEltAL Rji:PORTER.
i GUNN, Trustee, and others' 17. SAVAGE and <i>thers. (Oirouit Oourt, :PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS -
March 8,1887.) DRAWINGS SUPPLYING
OMIssioNS. . , ,, ' ., Where one part of an invention is proper1y described, and the: secqnd part isno,t alluded to in tbewritten or 4escriptive part of tb,e specificll,tion, but is sb,own in the drawings,andtbe secondcIaim IS broad eMUgh to include the seco.nd portion of the invention if it bad been properly described in the specification, the drawings cannot. supply the entire absence of written descrip.tion; enable the second claim to. be so construed as to include the omitted portion 9f the invention, . ,
CLAnlS.,...., Sl'ECIFICATIONS -
In Equity. ..' S. Parker and (}harle8 E; PerTcin8, for plaintiffs. MarCl.i8 H. Holcomb and Oharles E. MitcheU, for defendants. : -;" , , ... .
.-
J,' This is a billin which is founded upon the alleged ofletters patent No. 314,189 and No. 31,4,192, each dated MarchJ7) 1885, and each Pearce; the first-mentioned being for improvements in dies for forging ox-shoes, and the second beingJ(l;ran improved method of forging ox-shoes. The second patent qies of the first is foitQ;emethod of making sb,oes by the use patent:: ,l\s the decision of thi& depends, in my opinion, nponthe to be placed uponN'().'314,189, it is important to give in full t4esubsumtial part of tbe, specification, wbich is as follows: SHIPMAN,
,:J'rhe'desi¥o ,of my invention is enab!e. to be qUlqkly. /lond cheaply produced by tnl!anS of dies, to whIch end said InVentIOn consists principally in theconstrtlction of the dies, num bel' of shoes tnay be f6rgedat one heat from a bar. BUbtantiallY' as ahd ,for the purpose hereinafter shown. It consists. further. in the series of dies used for forging I/o substantially as and for the purpose hereinafter set forth. It consists. fin;)Jly. iJ;).combining with the fqrging (}ies, as shown, a trim;ming die adapted to receive, sprue-connected blanks and to trim from each the surplus metal, substantially as and for the purpose hereinafter specified., : ' . . ..Iuthe carrying into l!ffect of my,invention I make use of two forging dies. A and B. which for convenience; arE(:formed within one block of metal, and are arranged side by side,but may, if,d!lSired. b,e formed !3ep.arately The first of said dies, A. has the general ap.d shape of the desired shoe·. C, but is Without. IljelJ,ns for forming the nail groove, while said second die, B, has the exact size and shape desired, and is provided with ,a A·shaped rib, b, which operates' to produce the said nail groove, c. in said' shoe. In practice I/o straight bar of iroIl'lll heated and placed over thedie,.A:, :in substantially a line with the tranverse centers of the calk-recesses. a:and aI, in which position to the action, plain-faced die, and caused to fill the ,caviti,es of ;said die,,;A. The partially forged shoe.·. C, is now placed Over the second die,. ,B, means. of said, upper die is forced into the same and receives the eX'act shape'retpiired, including the nail groove" c. "In order that shoes may be forged directly' from a bar, at each end of each die. A and B. is formed an outward and downward inclined face, a2 and -b 3· respectively. which operates to produce a A-shaped transverse notch, c1, at