pnucxmmarau .1;. Masons.;-—_. 35
. other than wool _or.,worsted? . That is, threads, as threads of other mas
. terial; not composition, or compound threads composed of wool and
other materials, but threads composed wholly. of material otherthan,
wool. (2) If youreach the conclusion that there hasbeen introduced.
in these goods threadsof other material than wool, you have then to de-
termine with what purpose those threads were introduced. Under the
concession _of counsel for the plaintiffs your task in determining as tothe
intent will present but few difficulties. He concedes that originally the
goods of this class were devised, in the first place, to escape the higher,.
rate of duty; but insists that as to the particular goods in these eight cases
there were operating upon the minds of the plaintiffs, who imported
them, as least two causes to induce them to import_ them in thisparticu-
lar shape. One cause was the endeavor to. introduce them at a lower
rate of duty; and the other was the circumstance that they were more
readily salable, or betteradapted to the purposes of his customers. In
deterrniningas to the purpose with which they were introduced, you- are
to considerthepredominant purpose. You are to take into considerag
tion the testimony here,··—not only the statement of the particular im—·
porter, but also all such facts as have been shown in the evidence from
which you may fairly infer what his intent was; and, considering the
entire body of testimony, you are to determine whether the predomi-
_nant operating cause which induced him to bring in the goods in this
character and form, was the purpose of changing the classification, or
the other purpose or purposes which he has indicated.
- Those two are the only questions which you will have to consider.
Should you decide both those questions in the affirmative,-that is, that
threads of materials other than wool have beenuntroduced here, and
that they were introduced with the intent of changing the classification,
—then your verdict should be for the defendant. Should you answer
either question in the negative,—that is, should you find that there
were not threads of other materials than wool in these goods; or, even if
answering that in the affirmative, you should {ind that they were not in-
troduced with the intent to undertake to change the classification.-ther!.
your verdict will be for the plaintiff. You need not concern yourselves
with the amount in dollars, because that can be written into your ver-
dict when it is rendered. I
» The defendant has requested me to charge that the collector is pre-
sumed to have assessed the duty according to law; and that the burden
of proof is on the plaintiff, to show by preponderance of evidence that
the collector was wrong. I so charge. A A
, The plaintiff requests me to charge that "it is established that the till-
ing of those goods was composed wholly of wool," and that "it is estab-
lished that no separate thread of the warp of these goods was composed
, wholly of wool." I so-charge. You will understand that the warp of"
the goods are the threads or yarns which run parallel to each other, and
lengthwise through the goods. No single one of thos_e threads was itself
composed wholly of wool. I also charge you that the warp of these
goods was composed of botlrcotton and wool in union., And also ·Gh¤¥!e