(CirCUit Oourt, S. D. New York. February 2,1891.)
CUSTOMS DUTIES-ApPRAISERS' DECISION-REVIEW-RETURN.
On proceedings in the circuit court to review the action of the board of general appraisers in the classification of certain merchandise, under act June 10.1890, "to simplify the laws in relation to the .collection of the revenues, " the return of the board stated that all the facts involved in the case were contained in its annexed opinion and decision, but the opinion merely affirmed the collector's assessment of duty. stating that for certain reasons it "was not deemed advisable to enter into the merits" of the question involved in the importer's protest. Held, that the return was not sufficient under section 15 of the act, providing that it shall contain" a certified statement of the facts Involved in the' case, " and that it should be sent back to the board to be conformed to the requirements of that section.
At Law. Motion for furtller return of board of general appraisers under theaetiof June 10, 1890, entitled "An· act to simplify the laws in to the c;Jollection of tl:ie revenues.'" . ',Charle80ur'l'ie, and W. WiekhamSmith, for petitioner. Edward MitcheU, U. S. and Henry O. Platt, Asst. U. S. Atty., for collector.
:;L.AcOMB", Circuit Judge. these four oases the collector 'of this port liquidated the duty upon certain importations Of the petitioners at 75 cents per pound, as leaf tobacco suitable for wrappel'Q, and possessing certain .other, characteristics which the tariff (paragraph 246) specified. Against this liquidatiOll the importers protested, setting forth in their protests the facts which, as they claimed, showed both that errors hltdbeen u;lI'l.d;e in the classification'of the tobacco, and that the examination of the importations had not been such as the statutes required. All thepaperil were transmitted to the board ·of general appraisers, which affirmed the action of the collector. The importers having applied to tbi$ court for: a review of the action of the board, orders were heretofore J:l!.Qde oalling fo:r returns of the" record and the evidence taken by them, tQgetherwitll a certified statement of the facts involved in the case, and theirdecisions!.thereon."·. Seotion 15, Act 1890; The returns filed in rflSponse to this order each state that "all the facts involved in said case, so far as ascertained by the .board,are fully stated in [a certain] opinion and decision [annexed thereto.]" In such opinion it is stated that, inasmuch as some of the questions raised by the protest are "understood to be now pending in the United States courts, [they] do not deem it advisable to enter into the merits of the same at this. time, but affirm [the collector's] assessment of duty." Both the counsel for the petitioners and the district attorney move the court to send back these returns as not in conformity to the requirements of the statute, insisting that neither the importer nor the government can safely proceed further in the cases until a proper return is filed. Certainly these returns do not contain any certified statement of "the facts involved in the case," which, under the
IN BE' WlIITl!J.
statute, it is the duty of the board to make. The joint motion must therefore be granted, and the returns sent back to the board, to be conformed to the requirements of the st8ltute as stated in the former orders.
(OiJrCUI/,t Oourt, D. Minnesota. March 10, 1891.)
Petitioner was duly cAarged before a magistrate in Wisconsin with the crime of grand larceny, and a. warrant of arrest issued, on which was based a requisition to whioh state petiUonernad 11ed. The requisition, however, stated that the crime committed was b\\rglary, and petitioner was di... chargell on habeas corpus. Thereupon a new proceeding was had before the , ' Wisoolisin magistrate, and a new warrlilit of arrest issued and a new requisition made,in which the crime was properly. !ltated as grl¥ld larceny. Petitioner, procured a .new writ of habeas corpus. He14, that the former discharge w8:s not Tes .,adjUdicata unless it was shown that it was granted on the question of identity of the person charge4 before the magistrate.
,to the governor of Minnesota,
EXTRADITION-RES AnJUDICATA-HABIIAS CORPus--DISCBARGll:.
. Though the requisition does not show 'on its face that it Was based on an origlnpJ. , proceeding had in the,proper court, it is suftlcientwhere it refers to papets annexed to it, and certified to be correct, which do show that fact.
Appeal from District CO)1rt. I. McCajfer,ty, for petitioner. W. I1. Frawley, for respondent. .
, SHIRAS, J. Briefly stated, the facts in this case are as follows:' On the 20th day of January, 1891, the governor of Minnesota issued a war.. Tant in due form. to the sheriff of Ramsey county, reciting that the governor of Wisconsin had demanded the. arrest and delivery of one Joseph White as a. from justice, the said White being charged by affidavit made before a magistrate in the county of Eau Claire, in the state of Wisconsin, with the crime of grand larceny, and directing the said sheriff' to arrest said White, and to deliver him to John Higgins, the agent appointed by the governor of the state of receive said White. The arrest havil)gbeenmade as directed, thereupon e. writ of habeas corpus was .sued outby said White from the United States district cOl;lrt for the district of Minnesota, and upon the return made thereto. a hearing washad.in said court, and an order entereddischil.rg'7 iug said writ, and rem.anq,jng the petitioner to the cllstody of the sheriff of Ramsey county. From, this ruling an .appeal was taken' to the circuit cout:t, under the provisions of section 763 of the Revised Statutes of the Unitl:>d. Statea, and by the consent of parties the same has been lit the . term:. of . From the :rooprd on file. it appears that on 17th !lay. off January,; 18\U, a bIG-uudei Thompson\1,nder oath ,Wtts' .filed before: E.: M.:BARTLETT,judge' of-the municipal court of the city of Eau Cllib'e l Wis., charging J oseph;W"hite