*Appraisement by a local appraiser under section 13, Customs Administrative Act June 10, 1890, c. 407, 26 Stat. 136 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1932], is presumably correct.-United States v. Curnen & Stiner (C. C. A.) 45. Olives, which are dutiable by the "gallon" under Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule G., par. 264, 30 Stat. 171 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1651], should be measured by the wine or liquid gallon and not the dry gallon, whether dried or in brine.-Ceballos v. United States (C. C. A.) 380; Lee Tai Lung v. Same, Id. *The general rule is that revenue can be collected only upon the quantity of merchandise actually imported and received by the importer. -American Cigar Co. v. United States (C. C. A.) 484; G. Falk & Bro. v. Same, Id. Under section 33, Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, 30 Stat. 213 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1701], section 20, Customs Administrative Act June 10, 1890, c. 407, 26 Stat. 140 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1950], as amended by section 54, Tariff Act Oct. 1, 1890, c. 1244, 26 Stat. 624 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1950], and Act December 15, 1902, c. 1, 32 Stat. 753 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1905, p. 420], the duty on tobacco entered for warehouse should be based on its weight at the time of withdrawal, and not of entry.-American Cigar Co. V. United States (C. C. A.) 484; G. Falk & Bro. v. Same, Id. Section 2983. Revised Statutes [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1958], prohibiting the abatement of duties "for any injury, damage, deterioration, loss or damage." does not relate to shrinkage in weight through evaporation.-American Cigar Co. v. United States (C. C. A.) 484; G. Falk & Bro. v. Same, Id. *Liquidation of duties is not complete until after the goods are delivered to the importer. -American Cigar Co. v. United States (C. C. A.) 484; G. Falk & Bro. v. Same, Id. The refusal by the collector to reliquidate an entry of merchandise on the basis of its condition on withdrawal from warehouse, constitutes a liquidation within 10 days of which a protest may be filed by the importers under section 14, Custom Administrative Act June 10, 1890, c. 407, 26 Stat. 137 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1933].-American Cigar Co. v. United States (C. C. A.) 484; G. Falk & Bro. v. Same. Id. Protests contending that the duty on chandise in warehouse should be based on the weight at the time of withdrawal, should be filed at the time of withdrawal, and not at the time of the original liquidation (Act June 10, 1890. c. 407, § 14, 26 Stat. 137 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1933]).-American Cigar Co. v. United States (C. C. A.) 484; G. Falk & Bro. v. Same, Id. On appeal from the Board of General Appraisers, importers should not, under section 15, Customs Administrative Act June 10, 1890, c. 407, 26 Stat. 138 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1933], be permitted to introduce evidence before the circuit court, where they gave no evidence before the Board, other than samples and an affidavit.-H. Mendelson & Co. v. United States (C. C.) 78. Foxberries in water, dutiable "per quart" under paragraph 262, Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule G, 30 Stat. 171 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1651], should be measured by the dry, and not the liquid, quart.-United States v. Boak Fish Co. (C. C.) 104. 18 Stat. 190 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1986], Under section 21, Act June 22, 1874, c. 391, providing that an entry shall not be reliquidated, in the absence of protest, more than one year after entry, the presence of protest on a portion of an importation does not give right of reliquidation as to any of the remainder of the importation.-Cassel v. United States (C. C.) 146. Under section 21, Act June 22, 1874, c. 391, 18 Stat. 190 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1986], providing that the settlement of duties shall be final one year after "entry," the entry referred to means the presentation of the document known as entry to the collector.-Cassel v. United States (C. C.) 146. The Board of General Appraisers, in deciding as to the polariscopic test of sugar drainings, is not restricted to evidence of Government tests made according to treasury regulations.-United States v. Lueder (C. C.) 149. § 4. Payment and collection, refunding, and drawback. A protest claiming merchandise to be "dutiable at the appropriate rate and under the proper paragraph according to the component material of chief value," is insufficient, under section 14, Customs Administrative Act June 10, 1890, c. 407, 26 Stat. 137 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1933].-Rosenberg v. United States (C. C.) 84. DAMAGES. For breach by seller of contract for sale of goods, see "Sales," § 3. In action on injunction bond, see "Injunction,” § 5. DEATH. Caused by negligence of vessel owner, see "Shipping," § 6. Of party to action ground for abatement, see "Abatement and Revival," § 1. § 1. Actions for causing death. 81. Actions for causing death. the state of Delaware, the liability of their *Where two vessels in collision belonged in owners for death of passengers or crew was governed by the Delaware laws.-The Hamilton (C. C. A.) 724; The Saginaw, Id. DEBTOR AND CREDITOR. See "Bankruptcy." *Point annotated. See syllabus. DECEDENTS. Estates, see "Executors and Administrators." DEEDS. In trust, see "Trusts," § 1. DIRECTING VERDICT. In civil actions, see "Trial," § 2. DISCHARGE. From indebtedness, obligation, or liability. Of mineral land, see "Mines and Minerals," § 2. See "Bankruptcy," § 8; "Release." Trust deeds, see "Mortgages." ELECTION OF REMEDIES. As against principal or agent, see "Principal and Agent," § 1. EMBEZZLEMENT. * * * *Rev. St. § 5497 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3707] extends the crime of embezzlement of public money to "every * * * person who uses, transfers, converts, appropriates, or applies any portion of the public money for any purpose not prescribed by law."-United States v. Green (D. C.) 778. An indictment for embezzlement of public money considered, and held to sufficiently describe the offense charged.-United States v. Green (D. C.) 778. EMINENT DOMAIN. Removal of condemnation proceedings to federal court, see "Removal of Causes," §§ 1, 2. § 1. Nature, extent, and delegation of power. *Under Alaska Code, c. 22, § 204 (31 Stat. 522), a corporation held entitled to condemn a right of way for a ditch and pipeline to convey water to work its own and the claims of others, and for other public and private uses. -Miocene Ditch Co. v. Jacobsen (C. C. A.) 680. § 2. Remedies of owners of property. Where complainants, who were entitled to condemn a right of way for a water ditch or flume across defendants' mining claims, were permitted to do so for two years, without objection, without their having condemned the land or paid damages, defendants were not entitled to destroy such ditch in the ordinary course of their mining operations.-Miocene Ditch Co. v. Jacobsen (C. C. A.) 680. EMPLOYES. See "Master and Servant." ENTRY, WRIT OF. See "Ejectment." EQUITABLE ASSIGNMENTS. See "Assignments," § 1. EQUITY. Equitable assignments, see "Assignments," § 1. Particular subjects of equitable jurisdiction and equitable remedies. See "Cancellation of Instruments"; "Discovery"; "Injunction"; "Partition," § 1; "Receivers"; "Specific Performance"; "Trusts." Enforcement of payment of indebtedness of school district, see "Schools and School Districts," § 1. Suits for infringement of patents, see "Patents," § 6. § 1. Jurisdiction, principles, and max ims. *The adequate remedy at law which will prevent relief in equity must be as certain, complete, and efficient as the remedy in equity.Castle Creek Water Co. v. City of Aspen (C. C. A.) 8. *Where the remedy at law and the remedy in equity involve an accounting and the consideration of many items, the remedy in equity is more complete and better adapted to attain the ends of justice than the remedy at law. Castle Creek Water Co. v. City of Aspen (C. C. A.) 8. *The rule that courts of equity will not enforce a forfeiture is not absolute or inflexible, and does not extend beyond the reasons which underlie it, and where its enforcement is more consonant with the principles of equity than the denial of such enforcement, equity will enforce it in a case within its cognizance. Lindeke v. Associates Realty Co. (C. C. A.) 630. § 2. Parties and process. *The showing made by a petition held sufficient to entitle the petitioner to intervene in a pending suit.-Brinckerhoff v. Holland Trust Co. (C. C.) 203. *Point annotated. See syllabus. § 3. Pleading. *In a suit to enjoin diversion of water from a stream a cross-bill filed by a defendant against the complainant which merely alleges priority of right in such defendant and diversion by complainant and prays affirmative relief sets up only matter of defense which may properly be taken by answer, and is demurrable.-Miller & Lux v. Rickey (C. C.) 574; Wood v. Rickey Land & Cattle Co., Id.; Miller & Lux v. Same, Id.; Gignoux v. Same, Id.; Gallagher v. Same, Id.; Ames v. Same, Id.; Nichol v. Same, Id.; Conway v. Same, Id. *A defendant cannot by calling his pleading a cross-bill and praying for affirmative relief require complainant to answer the same where the matter set up therein is purely defensive.Miller & Lux v. Rickey (C. C.) 574; Wood v. Rickey Land & Cattle Co., Id.; Miller & Lux v. Same, Id.; Gignoux v. Same, Id.; Gallagher v. Same, Id.; Ames v. Same, Id.; Nichol v. Same, Id.; Conway v. Same, Id. ERROR, WRIT OF. See "Appeal and Error." ESTABLISHMENT. Of railroads, see "Street Railroads," § 1. ESTATES. Deportation proceedings, see "Aliens.". For breach of contract, see "Contracts," § 5; "Sales," § 3. For discharge of bankrupt, see "Bankruptcy," § 8. For infringement of copyright, see "Copyright," § 2. For injuries from fire caused by operation of railroad, see "Railroads," § 1. For personal injuries, see "Carriers," § 3. On insurance policy, see "Insurance,' § 4. To establish rights to mining claims, see "Mines and Minerals," § 1. In criminal prosecutions. See "Bribery"; "Conspiracy," § 1; "Criminal Law," § 2; "Disorderly House"; "Larceny,' § 1. Violations for offense against postal laws, see "Post Office," § 1. Review and procedure thereon in appellate See "Appeal and Error," § 5. § 1. Judicial notice. *The Baker patents, Nos. 726,812, and 736,346, for a process of treating coffee, are void for lack of invention in view of the prior art of which the court will take judicial notice.Baker v. F. A. Duncombe Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.) 744. *On the question of invention, in a suit for See "Executors and Administrators"; "Life infringement of a patent, the court will take Estates." Created by will, see "Wills," § 1. judicial cognizance of facts of general knowledge or devices in common use which may be Estates for years, see "Landlord and Tenant." similar or identical in principle with that of Trusts, see "Trusts," § 2. ESTOPPEL. By judgment, see "Judgment," § 1. the patent.-Baker v. F. A. Duncombe Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.) 744. § 2. Presumptions. *If a party to a cause fails to produce evidence which in the opinion of the jury he could To avoid or forfeit insurance policy, see "In- produce in support of his position if his testisurance," § 2. EVIDENCE. See "Discovery"; "Witnesses." mony, which is contradicted, is true, the jury is justified in drawing the inference from such omission either that there is no such evidence that can be produced or that if it was produced, it would not be favorable to such party.-Murray v. Joseph (D. C.) 260. Applicability of instructions to evidence, see § 3. Relevancy, materiality, and com Trial," § 3. Reception at trial, see "Trial," § 1. As to particular facts or issues. See "Abandonment." Negligence of railroad company, see "Railroads," § 1. Negligence of vessel, see "Shipping," § 2. petency in general. *A letter from an agent to his principal reporting an interview between the agent and a third person which occurred some time before and is not admissible as independent evidence is merely a narrative of a past transaction, against such third person nor to corroborate the testimony of the agent.-Inman Bros. v. In actions by or against particular classes of Dudley & Daniels Lumber Co. (C. C. A.) 449. persons. See "Carriers." § 3; "Railroads," § 1. In particular civil actions or proceedings. See "Cancellation of Instruments," § 1; "Ejectment," § 1; "Injunction," § 3. S 4. Admissions. *Where an agent was the secret but accredited representative of defendants, evidence as to what he said and did while in the performance of his duties as agent held admissible against defendants.-Schiffer v. Anderson (C. C. A.) 457. *Point annotated. See syllabus. § 5. Parol or extrinsic evidence affect- | estate and is liable therefor in such capacity ing writings. to the true owner.-Newcomb v. Burbank (C. C.) 400. *A contract for the sale of a stock of goods held incomplete and indefinite, authorizing the admission of parol evidence.-North American Transportation & Trading Co. v. Samuels (C. C. A.) 48. *A policy executed and delivered held to merge all parol negotiations, understandings, and agreements, which could therefore not be proved by parol.-Kentucky Vermillion Mining & Concentrating Co. v. Norwich Union Fire Ins. Soc. (C. C. A.) 695. *In_an_action_on a fire policy, parol evidence held inadmissible to show a custom or usage defining the term "watchman's clause."-Kentucky Vermillion Mining & Concentrating Co. v. Norwich Union Fire Ins. Soc. (C. C. A.) 695. § 6. Opinion evidence. *In an action for brokers' commissions, a question calling for defendant's "understanding" as to whether plaintiff represented defendant or the purchaser held inadmissible.-Love v. Seatcherd (C. C. A.) 1. § 7. Weight and sufficiency. Inadmissible evidence, introduced without objection, may establish the fact in controversy as conclusively as the best evidence.-Paine v. Willson (C. C. A.) 488. EXAMINATION. Of witnesses in general, see "Witnesses," § 2. EXCEPTIONS. Taking exceptions at trial, see "Criminal Law," § 3; "Trial," § 1. EXCHANGES. *A board of trade, which has a right of property in market quotations collected in its exchange, held not to have surrendered them to the public.-McDearmott Commission Co. V. Board of Trade of City of Chicago (C. C. A.) 961. EXCISE. Duties, see "Internal Revenue." EXECUTION. In the construction and carrying out of an extradition treaty, the indictment must be construed after full consideration of all its clear and substantial averments.-United States v. Greene (D. C.) 766. Distinction between relating clause of the Ashburton treaty of 1842 as to extradition and the supplemental treaty of March 25, 1890, now of force, discussed.-United States v. Greene (D. C.) 766. An indictment held to charge fraud by an agent and participation therein by his codefendants, and to authorize their extradition under See "Attachment"; "Garnishment": "Judicial the treaty of 1890 (Act March 25, 1890, 26 Stat. Sales." EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS. See "Wills." Testamentary trustees, see "Trusts." § 1. Assets, appraisal, and inventory. *Whatever property is received by an executor after the death of the testator in virtue of his 1509) between Great Britain and the United States. United States v. Greene (D. C.) 766. *In the construction and carrying out of extradition treaties, the ordinary technicalities of criminal proceedings are applicable only to a limited extent.-United States v. Greene (D. C.). 766. representative capacity he holds as assets of the See "Brokers." FACTORS. |