Carberry v. United States

• Decision Date: 31 May 1902
• Docket Number: 3,109.
• Citation: 116 F. 773
• Parties: CARBERRY et al. v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

116 F. 773

CARBERRY et al. v. UNITED STATES.

No. 3,109.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. New York.

May 31, 1902

Albert Comstock, for importers.

Charles D. Baker, Assistant U.S. Atty.

The following is the opinion of the board of general appraisers:

The protestants imported a number of bottles, which appear to have been once used, and which they claim are entitled to free entry as old junk, under the provisions of paragraph 588 of the act of 1897. The local appraiser returned them as 'colored glass bottles under one pint,' and duty was assessed thereon at the rate of 1 1/2 cents per pound, under the provisions of paragraph 99 of said act. The protestants herein also claim said merchandise assessed under the provisions of paragraph 99 aforesaid; but upon notice given to submit evidence in support thereof, said importers through their counsel, chose to waive all claims except that the merchandise is entitled to free entry as junk. In submitting this case, counsel for the importers claim that trade or commercial understanding of the merchandise is unnecessary, in view of the lexicographical definition of the word 'junk,' and submit an extract from the Century Dictionary in support of that contention. The extract is as follows: 'Worn-out and discarded material in general that may be turned to some use; especially, old rope, chain, iron copper, parts of machinery and bottles, gathered or bought up by tradesmen, called junk dealers; hence, rubbish of any kind; odds and ends.'

John Carberry, one of the importers, testified that the word 'junk' included old sails, old bags, woolen or cotton rags, scrap iron, old bottles, scrap metal, and all waste left over in factories. In this list of articles claimed to be junk is included many things specially provided for in the tariff, and, although it may be that they are looked upon by junkmen as junk, yet they cannot be claimed to be provided for under the paragraph for junk, for the reason that their designation elsewhere by name is more specific. If the importers' contention were well founded, many or nearly all old articles of merchandise, including parts of old machinery, old jute bagging or jute waste fit for other than paper stock, woolen rags, and second-hand bottles, would escape the duty specifically provided therefor by congress. The tariff does not discriminate between old and new bottles they are still bottles, and are never considered or used as anything other than bottles. They certainly do not agree with the description set out in the definition furnished and cited above. They are not worn out or discarded material or rubbish,...