Customs duties.- In 'suit for forfeiture of Rheims wines for false invoicing, a "Price-Current," setting out wholesale prices of similar wines at Paris, is admissible as tending to prove true value, p. 140. "Price

Customs duties. In suit for false invoicing of wines, Current" furnished witness by champagne dealer in Paris, in no way connected with claimant, was neither hearsay nor irrelevant, but admissible as tending to prove market value of champagne, p. 141.

Cited and principle applied in Fennerstein's Champagne, 3 Wall. 148, 18 L. 124, holding letters between third persons admissible to show market value of champagne; United States v. Merriam, 26 Fed. Cas. 1238, sustaining admission of third person's testimony upon market value of tar; Republican Newspaper Co. v. Northwestern Assoc. Press, 51 Fed. 379, 10 U. S. App. 72, holding evidence of sums offered for membership in defendant, of which plaintiff had been wrongfully deprived, admissible to show damage; Central R. R. v. Skellie, 86 Ga. 694, 12 S. E. 1019, collecting cases, holding admissible, testimony upon market value of peaches in New York on a certain day, of one long in fruit-shipping business; Washington Ice Co. v. Webster, 68 Me. 464, holding testimony of persons familiar with market, admissible upon question of value of ice at time and place wrongfully taken; Norton v. Willis, 73 Me. 582, collecting cases, holding, under the circumstances, evidence of purchase price of six horses admissible to show value of three; Comstock v. Smith, 20 Mich. 342, holding value of United States money in Canada provable in same manner as value of commodities at a distance; Worthington v. Hanna, 23 Mich. 535, holding appraisement under attachment levy evidence of value; Seligman v. Rogers, 113 Mo. 657, 21 S. W. 97, collecting cases, holding a price current competent evidence upon question of value of stocks at a given time; Harrison v. Glover, 72 N. Y. 454, holding proof of offers to sell goods at a certain price admissible upon question of market value. Cited also, arguendo, in Schettler v. Jones, 20 Wis. 418, holding certain account books admissible to show delivery of goods. See also good discussion in note to 90 Am. Dec. 259, 260. Distinguished in Whelan v. Lynch, 60 N. Y. 474, 19 Am. Rep. 203, holding "Shipping and Price Current List" inadmissible to show value of wool, without proof of how it was made up; Fairly v. Smith, 87 N. C. 371, 42 Am. Rep. 525, holding testimony of wit ness who derived his knowledge from reading newspaper reports, inadmissible upon question of market value.

Evidence. In administering law of evidence, courts should nor incumber it with rules that involve delay, and labor and expens to the parties, without giving additional safeguard to interests or justice, p. 141.

Cited in Kansas Pac. Ry. v. Miller, 2 Colo. 462, to this point.

Appeal and error.- Overruling of objection to testimony upon difference in prices at Rheims and at Paris, of other manufacturer■ champagne, is not reviewable in absence of showing of difference in quality and price between that and the champagne in question, p. 142.

Appeal and error.— - Appellate court need not enter upon examination of exceptions to instructions refused where judge's charge was satisfactory and covered entire case, p. 142.

Customs duties.- Revenue act of 1863, requiring foreign goods to be invoiced at their market value at the place where manufactured or procured, did not mean any locality more limited than the country where bought or made, p. 143.

Cited in Three Thousand One Hundred and Nine Cases of Champagne, 1 Ben. 250, F. C. 14,012, construing "market value" in act of 1863.

Customs duties.- Provisions of revenue act of 1799, requiring customs officers to seize goods liable to seizure "as well without as within their respective districts," and throwing onus probandi upon claimant where probable cause shown for prosecutions, to be judged of by trial court, remained in force under subsequent acts, pp. 143, 144.

Cited and principle applied in The Ocean Bride, 1 Hask. 340, F. C. 10,404, holding burden of proof on claimants of vessel, where probable cause for forfeiture shown; The Coquitlam, 57 Fed. 714, holding burden on claimants where foreign vessel transferred cargo in American waters, and when seized was without manifest; United States v. Lot of Jewelry, 59 Fed. 690, holding verdict for government for forfeiture of jewelry seized under suspicious circumstances properly directed, in absence of showing by claim ants. Cited also in Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 723, 37 L. 919, 13 S. Ct. 1028, sustaining constitutionality of act throwing burden of proof on Chinaman, claiming right to land.

Statutes. Tacit recognition of continuance of law in force, in cases where the question is involved, is equivalent to an express determination of the fact, p. 144.

Cited and followed in Atkins v. Fibre Disintegrating Co., 1 Ben. 120, F. C. 600, where courts had long tacitly regarded eleventh section of judiciary act of 1789 as inapplicable to admiralty pro ceedings; Deposit Savings Assn. v. Mayer, 7 Fed. Cas. 506, holding tacit recognition by Supreme Court of a construction of act, taxing State bank notes, virtually decided the question.

Customs duties. The term "knowingly" in revenue act of 1863, relating to false invoicing, etc., refers to guilty knowledge of owner, consignee or agent making or attempting to make such entry, and entry by innocent agent is act of guilty principal, p. 144.

ANN

Cited and principle applied in Evanston v. Gunn, 99 U. S. 667, 25 L. 307, holding signal service entries need not be made by public officer to be admissible, if made under his direction; Two Hundred and Fifty Barrels, etc. v. United States, Chase Dec. 512, F. C. 14,293, holding use of false invoice by consignee forfeited cargo; Twelve Hundred and Nine Casks, etc., of Sherry, 2 Ben. 271, F. C. 14,279, construing "knowingly" in revenue act of 1863; Schettler v. Jones, 20 Wis. 418, holding certain account books admissible to show delivery of goods.

Distinguished in Chaffee v. United States, 18 Wall. 542, 21 L. 913, holding knowledge of persons making private entries essential to their admissibility.

Customs duties.- Revenue laws are not penal laws in the sense that requires them to be construed with great strictness in defendant's favor, but are remedial in their character, and should be construed to carry out legislative intention, p. 145.

Cited and principle applied in United States v. Hodson, 10 Wall. 406, 19 L. 939, holding persons liable on bond voluntarily given under revenue act, though not strictly in the form required; Smythe v. Fiske, 23 Wall. 380, 23 L. 49, construing tariff act of 1864 to include silk ties under "manufactures of silk;" United States v. Stowell, 133 U. S. 12, 33 L. 558, 10 S. Ct. 246, collecting cases, holding forfeiture imposed by revenue act for operating illicit distillery included all personalty voluntarily left on the premises; Two Hundred and Fifty Barrels, etc. v. United States, Chase Dec. 511, F. C. 14,293, construing revenue law of 1863, holding whole cargo forfeited by fraud as to portion thereof; United States v. One Hundred Barrels of Spirits, 2 Abb. (U. S.) 314, 1 Dill. 58, F. C. 15,948, refusing to extend forfeiture to property sold to innocent purchaser before seizure; Twenty-eight Cases Containing Wine, 2 Ben. 66, F. C. 14,281, holding burden was on claimants to rebut prima facie evidence of entry upon which reappraisement based; United States v. Thirty-Six Barrels of High Wines, 7 Blatchf. 464, F. C. 16,468, holding spirits forfeited by owner's violation of internal revenue law, though spirits under inspector's lock; United States v. Mynderse, 7 Blatchf. 489, F. C. 15,850, re-reported sub nom. United States v. Belding, in 24 Fed. Cas. 1079, holding omission, within time limited, to seize property forfeited by violation of act no bar to recovery of sum forfeited thereby; United States v. Dustin, 25 Fed. Cas. 950, holding certain law to punish conspiracies a revenue law, and prosecution thereunder not barred by statute of limitation applicable to crimes; United States v. Hodson, 26 Fed. Cas. 338, construing liberally, powers of assessor under certain provisions of revenue law; Anglo-California Bank v. Secretary of Treasury, 76 Fed. 748, 48 U. S. App. 39, holding government's accrued right to sell goods in bond to pay duties payable when imported, not affected by act reducing duties; Mills v. Thurston County, 16 Wash. 380, 47 VOL. VI-31

Pac. 760, construing law providing for distraint of goods of person charged with delinquent taxes, to extend to such goods in transferee's hands; United States v. Sapinkow, 90 Fed. 659, declaring that revenue statutes are to be construed liberally.

Customs duties.— Market value of goods is price at which owner or producer holds them for sale, at which they are offered in the market, and bought and sold in ordinary course of trade; the actual cost is not the standard, pp. 125, 142-144.

Cited and followed in Muser v. Magone, 155 U. S. 249, 39 L. 138, 15 S. Ct. 81, Three Thousand One Hundred and Nine Cases of Champagne, 1 Ben. 250, F. C. 14,012, Twelve Hundred and Nine, etc., Casks, etc., of Sherry Wine, 2 Ben. 268, F. C. 14,279, Six Cases of Silk Ribbons, etc., 3 Ben. 538, F. C. 12,914, and United States v. Sixteen Cases of Ribbons, 27 Fed. Cas. 1102, construing "actual market value;" Sanford v. Peck, 63 Conn. 493, 27 Atl. 1058, defining market value," holding evidence of price goods brought at auction sale admissible to show such value.

66

Miscellaneous.- Cited Fennerstein's Champagne, 3 Wall. 147, 18 L. 124, referring to leading case for points decided.

8 Wall. 145-149, 18 L. 121, FENNERSTEIN'S CHAMPAGNE.

Customs duties. In libel for false invoicing of wines, letters be tween third parties, offering to sell similar wines and written in ordinary course of business, are admissible to show market value at a particular place, p. 149.

Cited and principle applied in Republican Newspaper Co. v. Northwestern Assoc. Press, 51 Fed. 379, 10 U. S. App. 72, holding evidence of sums offered for membership in defendant, of which plaintiff was wrongfully deprived, admissible to show damage; Locke v. Porter, etc., Min. Co., 41 Cal. 306, holding third person's receipt admissible to show an indebtedness; Central R. R. v. Skellie, 86 Ga. 694, 12 S. E. 1019, collecting cases, holding admissible, testimony upon market value of peaches in New York on a certain day, of one long in fruit-shipping business; Sisson v. Cleveland, etc., Rd., 14 Mich. 497, 90 Am. Dec. 255, holding market reports in newspapers competent evidence of value of beef; Worthington v. Hanna, 23 Mich. 535, holding appraisement under attachment levy evidence of value; Northwestern Fuel Co. v. Mahler, 36 Minn. 167, 30 N. W. 757, collecting cases, where market price at certain time proven, by testimony of dealers as to price they sold at then. Cited also in Schettler v. Jones, 20 Wis. 418, holding certain account books admissible to show delivery of goods. See also note to 90 Am. Dec. 260.

Distinguished in Chaffee v. United States, 18 Wall. 542, 21 L. 913, holding knowledge of persons making private entries essential to their admissibility; Bedford v. State, 36 Neb. 708, 55 N. W. 265,

ANN

holding letters between third parties inadmissible to prove attempt by defendant to corrupt a witness; Keith v. Haggart, 2 N. Dak. 25, 48 N. W. 434, holding incompetent testimony upon market value of wheat at a particular time from knowledge derived from inspection of another's books.

3 Wall. 150-155, 18 L. 172, WALKER v. THE TRANSPORTATION CO.

Customs duties.- Act of 1851, limiting shipowner's liability for loss by fire not occasioned by such owner's design or neglect, embraces vessels engaged in commerce on the great lakes, pp. 152, 153.

Distinguished in Woodhouse v. Cain, 95 N. C. 114, holding navigatlon upon a small sound lying wholly within a State not within the act.

Shipping.- Act of 1851, releasing shipowner from liability for loss by fire, not occasioned by his design or neglect, exempts him from liability for misconduct of officers and mariners, in which he does not participate personally, p. 153.

Cited and principle applied in Craig v. Continental Ins. Co., 141 U. S. 646, 35 L. 888, 12 S. Ct. 99, S. C., when in Circuit Court, 26 Fed. 799, holding shipowners' liability for loss occasioned without their privity or knowledge, but with that of wrecking master, limited; Keene v. The Bark Whistler, 2 Sawy. 349, F. C. 7,645, holding owners who had not personally participated in alleged negligence of master and co-owner, not liable therefor; Lord v. Goodall, etc., Steamship Co., 4 Sawy. 301, F. C. 8,506, reviewing cases, holding owner's liability for loss occasioned by wreck through master's negligence, limited to value of his interest; The Anna, 47 Fed. 526, holding owner entitled to have his liability limited, where vessel sunk through master's negligence; The Annie Faxon, 75 Fed. 316, 44 U. S. App. 591, collecting cases, holding right to limitation of llability existed where owners were without knowledge of the defect causing loss; The Republic, 61 Fed. 112, 20 U. S. App. 561, holding owner liable for loss arising from defect in vessel. Cited also in Simpson v. Story, 145 Mass. 499, 1 Am. St. Rep. 481, 14 N. E. 642, holding statute inapplicable to fishing vessels. See also note to 31 Am. Dec. 555.

Distinguished in Carroll v. Staten Island Rd., 58 N. Y. 142, 17 Am. Rep. 232, holding liability incurred by accident resulting from violation of statute limiting pressure of steam unaffected by act in question. Explained in Hill Mfg. Co. v. Providence, etc., Steamship Co., 113 Mass. 499, 18 Am. Rep. 531, holding act inapplicable where neglect of officers of corporation owning vessel, occasioned loss.

Shipping. Usage or custom of construing certain words in bille of lading as extending owner's liability beyond statutory limitations, is not such contract for extension of liability as proviso to statute,