Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/896

 884: FEDERAL REPORTER. �In this point of view, the collection not being dutiable, the United States would not be legally defrauded, even though the means which the claimant used to change the status of his collection by exporting them to Canada was circuitous, and would have been blamable if the United States would have been legally injured thereby, Under the act of 1874 no forfeiture can be enforced except upon an actual in- tent to defraud the United States. Hence, unless ■ the acts com- plained of involved a loss of duties to which the goverment was enti- tled, there could be no legal injury to the United States, and hence no actual intent to defraud them. The claimant and his agent had from the first protested against the claim that this collection of antiquities was dutiable, and, as I hold that it was not dutiable, a verdict must be directed for the claimant. ���Grebnwalt V. TacKER and others.* (Oircuit Court, E. D. Missouri. March 27, 1882.) �1. Pbactice— Triai, upon Agkeed Statement of Facts— Fkaito on JimisDic- �TioN — New Teial. �A new trial may be granted at the instance of a defendant against whom judgment has been rendered in a case tried upon an agreed statement of facts, upon proof of evidence having been brouglit to his knowledge after the trial, which he could not have previously discovered by the use of due diligence, showing the perpetration by the plaintifE of a fraud on the jurisdiction of the court. �2. Same — JumsDicTioN — Fba0d upon. �The transfer by a blank deed mala fide, witliout consideration, of the title to land in one state to a citizen of another, for the purpose of bringing suit in a federal court, will not enable the grantee to maintain a suit in eiectment in such court. �Motion for a New Trial. �Monk & Monk, for plaintiff. �Charles Gibson, for defendants. �Trbat, D. J. This is an action of ejeotment against three defend- ants, charging them with being in possession of the promises. There was a joint answer, in which there was no deniai of the joint posses- sion as averred; and hence the suggestion that the judgment for damages against all the defendants was erroneous, has no foundation in law or in the pleadings or in the facts agreed. �*Keported by B. P. Rex, Esq., of the St. Louis bar. ��� �