Four Packages v. United States

delivered the opinion of the court.

Goods imported in any ship or vessel from any foreign port or place are required by the act of Congress to be landed in open day, and the express provision is, that none such shall be landed or delivered from such ship or vessel without a permit from the collector and naval officer, if any, for such unlading and delivery. 1 Stat. 665; Gen. Reg. (1857), 145.

Persons violating that regulation are subjected to penalties ; and the further provision is, that all goods, wares, and merchandise so unladen .or delivered shall become forfeited, and may be seized by any of- the officers of the customs.

Four imported packages containing human hair and other dutiable articles were seized on land by the collector; and the information alleges that the goods were brought into the port of New York in the steamer therein named, from a foreign port, and that the four packages were unladen and delivered from the steamer in which they were imported into the port without a permit from the collector and naval officer for such unlading and delivery. Seasonable .appearance was entered by the claimants, and they pleaded the general issue, that the goods did not become forfeited as alleged, which was duly joined.

Pursuant to the issue between the parties, they went to trial before the district judge and a jury. Evidence to prove the allegations of the information was introduced by the district attorney, showing that the steamer arrived at the port from a foreign port at the time alleged, and that the claimants then and there came in the vessel as steerage passengers, and that they brought with them the said four packages containing the described goods ; that on the arrival of the steamer within the port she proceeded to the dock or pier at Hoboken, N. J., *410 owned by tbe Bremen line of steamships, to which she belonged, and commenced the landing of her passengers and their baggage on the dock ; that two inspectors of customs, especially detailed by the collector of the port for the examination of the baggage of the steerage passengers, in the execution of their duty found the said four packages upon the said dock, the same having, without the knowledge of the inspectors, been there unladen and delivered on said dock from the vessel by the officers of the vessel or their employés, and having been then and there claimed by the claimants as their property; that the said four packages were each in a wooden box or case similar to boxes or cases used for the package of merchandise, with a cover connected therewith by hinges; that in each box were some articles of wearing-apparel and other peTsonal effects not dutiable, but there was besides such articles a large quantity of dutiable merchandise.

Testimony was also introduced which showed that the claimants, being residents and in business in New York City, went together from there to Germany the month previous; that they then had in contemplation, on their return, the establishment of a partnership with each other to carry on the business of hairdressing and the manufacturing of switches, and that the father of the junior partner is a dealer in fancy goods in New York City; that the human hair found in the packages was purchased in Germany to be used in the manufacture of switches for sale; and that the residue of the meiekandise contained in the packages was fancy goods bought for and at the request of the father of the said junior partner, to be brought and delivered to him for sale in his said business.

Proof was also introduced by the district attorney showing that the packages were produced to the officers of the steamer by the claimants when they engaged their passage, as their baggage, and that the packages were unladen by the officers of the steamer and put upon the dock at the place of landing as such, without knowledge of their contents by the officers, with other baggage of the steerage passengers.

Tiro of the packages were opened and examined at the place where they were unladen; and it being found that each contained dutiable goods not on the manifest, the inspectors placed *411 upon each of the four packages the usual marks to show that they bad not been passed, but were to be sent to Castle Garden for further inspection and for the collection of tbe duties to which tbe same were subject; that no permit or document in tbe nature of a permit, either in terms or legal effect, for tbe unlading or delivery of tbe goods bad been' grantéd by tbe collector and naval officer of tbe port, otherwise than as set forth in tbe two exhibits offered in evidence by tbe claimants.

Those two exhibits were offered in evidence by the claimants as the permits required by law for tbe unlading and delivery of tbe four packages in question ; but tbe district attorney objected to tbe admission of tbe same as not being tbe permits wbicb the act of Congress requires in such a case; and tbe court sustained the objection and excluded tbe same, to wbicb ruling the claimants excepted. Exceptions were also taken to tbe charge of the court. Tbe verdict and judgment were for the plaintiffs; and the defendants sued out a writ of error and removed the cause into tbe Circuit Court, where the judgment of the District Court was affirmed. Though defeated in both of tbe subordinate courts, tbe respondents removed tbe cause into this court by the present writ of error.

Three principal errors were assigned, wbicb will be separately considered: 1. That the seizure of the goods in question was not made at a port within tbe jurisdiction of the District Court. 2. That tbe court erred in refusing to admit in evidence tbe exhibits offered by tbe claimants as permits for tbe unlading and delivery of tbe goods. 3. That the court erred in directing tbe jury to find a verdict in favor of tbe plaintiffs.

Much discussion of tbe first assignment of error is unnecessary, as it is clear that tbe seizure of tbe four packages was made at Castle Garden, where tbe goods were sent by tbe inspectors present on tbe wharf, for final examination. Sufficient appears to show that tbe duties in such cases are never collected on tbe wharf; that the examination made is only for tbe purpose of passing the baggage wbicb does not contain any dutiable articles, and that tbe baggage wbicb does contain dutiable goods is uniformly sent to Castle Garden for tbe collection of tbe duties, or to be dealt with as tbe law directs. Suffice it to say that no seizure was made on tbe wharf where the goods *412 were landed, and that the proceeding in sending the goods to the place where the seizure was made was in all respects correct and in accordance with the usage of the port. The Propeller Commerce, 1 Black, 574; 3 Greenl. Evid. (8th ed.), sect. 395; The Slavers (Kate), 2 Wall. 350.

Due seizure was made in this case at Castle Garden, and consequently the first assignment of errors must be overruled.

Nor does the second assignment of error require any consid-erable examination, as it is too clear for argument that neither of the exhibits offered in evidence was a permit for landing and delivering any package which contained dutiable merchandise. Opposed to that is the suggestion of the respondents, that two of the inspectors were present on the wharf when the officers of the steamer unloaded the packages and placed them with the other baggage for examination; but it is wholly immaterial whether the inspectors were present or absent at the moment the packages were landed from the steamer, as it cléarly appears that as soon as the inspectors discovered that the packages contained dutiable merchandise, they ordered the same to be sent to the proper place for further inspection.

Taken as a whole, the evidence fully proved that the packages were unladen and delivered without the permit required by the act of Congress; and inasmuch as there was no opposing testimony, the direction of the court to the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiffs was entirely correct. Improvement Company v. Munson, 14 Wall. 442; Ryder v. Wombwell, Law Rep. 4 Ex. 39; Law Rep. 2 P. C. 235.

Repeated requests for instruction were presented by the respondents, all of which were refused. Some of the rulings of the court in refusing these requests are also assigned for error, but it is wholly unnecessary to examine those assignments, as the instructions given disposed of the case.

Judgment affirmed.