meaning of the pertinent provision of the tariff act." It is evident that these goods were made with the intent of bringing them within the provisions of paragraph 391, as claimed by the importers. It does not appear that the threads participate in the effective work of the filling. But "it is a well-settled doctrine that intent is not an element in determining the proper classification of imported articles, and that merchants are at liberty so to manufacture and so to import their goods as to subject them to the lowest possible duties under the tariff laws." United States v. Irwin, 24 C. C. A. 349, 350, 78 Fed. 799, 801. If the decision of the board is to be construed as holding that these are not "goods * containing two or more colors in the filling," their finding is unsupported by the evidence, because the two witnesses for the importer testified that the additional colored threads were known as "threads of the filling," and the two witnesses for the government did not deny this statement. The decision of the board of general appraisers is reversed. HIPP, DIDISHEIM & BRO. v. UNITED STATES. SCHWOB v. UNITED STATES. (Circuit Court, S. D. New York. April 17, 1901.) 1. CUSTOMS DUTIES-CLASSIFICATION-WATCH MOVEMENTS. Certain incomplete watch movements, adjusted so as to run, the only parts lacking being the dial, or the dial, the various hands, and the minute wheel, are dutiable as "watch movements," and not as "parts of watches, not otherwise provided for," under paragraph 191, Schedule C. § 1, Tariff Act July 24, 1897, 30 Stat. 167 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1645). * Appeals by Hipp, Didisheim & Bro., and Adolph Schwob, importers, from a decision (G. A. 4280) of the Board of General Appraisers, which affirmed the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York on the merchandise in question. A. P. Ketchum, for the importers. TOWNSEND, District Judge. The merchandise in question comprises certain articles, consisting of watch plates, with the complete mechanism between them adjusted so as to run, but with certain parts above the top plate lacking, namely, in some cases only the dial, in other cases the dial, the hour hand, the minute hand, the second hand, the hour wheel, and the minute wheel. They were assessed for duty under the provisions of paragraph 191, Schedule C, § 1, c. 11, Tariff Act July 24, 1897, 30 Stat. 167 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1645), as "watch movements," at 35 cents each and 25 per cent. ad valorem. The importers protested, claiming that they were "parts of watches, * * * not otherwise provided for" (same paragraph). The importers contended that the term "watch movements" in trade and commerce covered a complete watch except the case. The board has found, upon conflicting testimony, that there is no such trade designation, and, furthermore, that such articles were unknown at the time of the passage of the act in question, and had therefore never been the subject of trade and commerce, and therefore could not be within any such commercial designation. The finding of the board, therefore, on this point is controlling. Counsel for the importers further contends that these are mere parts of movements, and as there is no provision for parts of movements they fall within the provision for "parts of watches, * * * not otherwise provided for." It is unnecessary to decide the contention of counsel for the government that in the term "watch movement" in its narrow sense is included the "train" of the watch, which comprises the motion works, consisting of balances and wheels, and in its broad sense is included the complete watch except the case. One of the articles in question contains every essential of a watch except the case and dial. The others comprise everything essential to keep time. The only missing parts are those above the watch plate, which are essentials to register rather than to keep the time. It further appears that these articles were wound, went, and were timed. That they were watch movements, within the understanding of common speech, is shown by the dictionaries and by the testimony, and is found by the board. The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed. SONOMA WINE & BRANDY CO. v. UNITED STATES. (Circuit Court, S. D. New York. May 19, 1900.) No. 3,049. 1. CUSTOMS DUTIES-CLASSIFICATION-GELATIN. So-called "finings," an article consisting of gelatin containing a considerable proportion of sulphurous acid or sulphite as a preservative, is dutiable as "gelatin," under paragraph 23, Schedule A, § 1, c. 11, Tariff Act July 24, 1897, 30 Stat. 152 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1628), and not as a manufacture of gelatin, under paragraph 450, Schedule N, § 1, c. 11, of said act, 30 Stat. 193 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1678), or as an unenumerated manufactured article, under section 6, c. 11, of said act, 30 Stat. 205 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1693). Appeal by the importer from a decision (G. A. 4295) of the Board of General Appraisers, which affirmed the assessment of duty by the collector of customs on certain merchandise imported at the port of New York. Howard T. Walden, for the importer. TOWNSEND, District Judge (orally). The merchandise in question, invoiced as "finings," is a "solution of gelatin containing a considerable proportion of sulphurous acid or sulphite as a preservative." It was assessed for duty as "gelatin, valued at not above ten cents per pound," under paragraph 23, Schedule a, § 1, c. 11, of the * * act of July 24, 1897, 30 Stat. 152 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1628), and claimed to be dutiable at 35 per cent. ad valorem as a manufacture of gelatin, not specially provided for, under paragraph 450, Schedule N, § 1, c. 11, 30 Stat. 193 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1678), or at 20 per cent. ad valorem as a manufactured article not specially provided for, under section 6, c. 11, of said act (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1693). The contention of the importer that this article is not gelatin is insufficiently supported by the evidence that it is not so known in a common_commercial sense, and that it had been dissolved in boiling water. It is not a manufacture of gelatin in any sense, certainly not in the sense in which that term is used in paragraph 450, and it is specially provided for under paragraph 23 of said act, and was properly assessed at 22 cents per pound. The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed. The article known as "carbolineum," or "carbolineum Avenarius," which consists of dead oil modified by the action of chlorine gas, is dutiable under the provision in paragraph 15, Schedule A, § 1, c. 11, tariff act of July 24, 1897 (30 Stat. 152, U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1627), for "preparations of coal tar, not colors or dyes and not medicinal, not specially provided for," and is not dutiable under the provision for "chemical compounds" in paragraph 3 of said act (30 Stat. 151, U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1627), or free of duty as "dead or creosote oil," under paragraph 524 of said act (Free List, § 2, c. 11, 30 Stat. 197, U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1682). Appeal by the importers from a decision (G. A. 4426) of the Board of General Appraisers, which affirmed the decision of the collector of customs at the port of New York. Comstock & Brown, for the importers. TOWNSEND, District Judge. The merchandise in question comprises dead oil modified by the fact that it has been subjected to the action of chlorine gas. It was assessed for duty under the provisions of paragraph 3 of the act of July 24, 1897, c. 11, Schedule A, § I (30 Stat. 151, U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1627), as a chemical compound or distilled oil, not specially provided for, at 25 per cent. ad valorem, and claimed as free under paragraph 524 of said act (Free List, § 2, c. II, 30 Stat. 197, U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1682), as a product of coal tar "known as dead or creosote oil," or alternatively at 20 per cent. ad valorem under paragraph 15 of the same act (30 Stat. 152, U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1627), as a coal-tar product or preparation, not a color or dye, and not medicinal, not specially provided for. This particular product is known commercially as "carbolineum" or "carbolineum Avenarius," the last being the name of its proprietor. In any event, it is not dutiable as a chemical compound or distilled oil, under various decisions of the courts not necessary to be here considered. The article is exactly and specifically provided for under paragraph 15, as a coal-tar product or preparation, not a color or dye, and not medicinal, etc. The evidence shows that it is bought and sold as carbolineum. There is no evidence that it is known as dead or creosote oil. For the foregoing reasons the decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed, and the article should be assessed for duty under paragraph 15 of said act of 1897. In re HAYNES. (District Court, D. Vermont. August 5, 1903.) 1. BANKRUPTCY-RETURN OF GOODS TAKEN ON REPLEVIN. Goods of a bankrupt taken on a replevin suit brought by a creditor within four months of the bankruptcy proceedings must be returned to the trustee. WHEELER, District Judge. Upon the finding of facts reported by the referee in respect to this claim, which is for $172.05, balance due on account for goods charged as sold, after crediting goods replevied, a rule to show cause was directed to be issued to the claimant and its agents, why the goods so charged for should not be delivered to the trustee; whereupon the claimant and its agents appeared, and for cause showed the replevin suit mentioned, brought within four months of the bankruptcy proceedings against Robert E. Gordon only, who had possession by virtue of a mortgage, whereby the goods of the bankrupt were taken and carried away from his store by the claimant. This did not constitute a preference, but was a taking by legal proceedings, made void by the bankrupt act, if valid at all against the bankrupt, and is without any showing of title by the claimant. The claimant and its agents are hereby ordered to return the goods so taken and charged for, and to deliver them forthwith to the trustee, and the claim is thereupon allowed at $172.05, with $656.85 credited for the goods replevied, in all $828.90. SCHULEMANN v. UNITED STATES. (Circuit Court, S. D. New York. April 20, 1901.) No. 2,863. 1. CUSTOMS DUTIES-CLASSIFICATION-FLAX FABRICS. In construing tariff act of July 24, 1897, c. 11, 1, Schedule J, par. 346, 30 Stat. 181 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1663], which relates to "woven fabrics or articles" of flax, etc., with a proviso "that none of the foregoing articles in this paragraph shall pay a less rate of duty than fifty per centum ad valorem," held, that this proviso includes the foregoing "woven fabrics" as well as "articles." Appeal by F. Schulemann, an importer, from a decision of the Board of General Appraisers, which sustained the action of the collector of customs at the port of New York in the classification for duty of the importations in question. See G. A. 4120. Everit Brown, for importer. C. D. Baker, Asst. U. S. Atty. TOWNSEND, District Judge. The merchandise in question comprises woven fabrics composed of flax, weighing over 41⁄2 ounces per square yard, which were assessed for duty under the proviso of the act of July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule J, par. 346, 30 Stat. 181 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1663], at 50 per cent. ad valorem, the compound rates named in the main part of the paragraph being as to those goods less than 50 per cent. The importer contends that as these goods are fabrics in the piece they are not subject to the bar of such proviso, and that the latter applies only to "articles" as contradistinguished from goods in the piece. It having been recently decided, however, by the Circuit Court of Appeals, in the case of United States v. McBratney, 45 C. C. A. 37, 105 Fed. 767, that the term "woven fabrics," found in this proviso, includes either piece goods or made-up articles, it cannot consistently be held that the word "articles" in the proviso does not include fabrics in the piece. The decision of the Board of Appraisers is affirmed. F. B. VANDEGRIFT & CO. v. UNITED STATES 1. CUSTOMS DUTIES-CLASSIFICATION-LILY BUDS. Lily buds, imported in condition to open in full bloom immediately upon arrival at their destination in this country, are dutiable as "lilies." under tariff act of July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule G, par. 251 (30 Stat. 170, U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1650), and are not free of duty under paragraph 617, § 2, c. 11, of said act (30 Stat. 199, U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1685), as "vegetable substances, crude or unmanufactured, not otherwise specially provided for." Appeal by F. B. Vandegrift & Co., importers, from a decision of the Board of General Appraisers, which affirmed the decision of |