Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/38

 KENNEDY i;. HABTRANFT. 23 �According to the testimony, to make a complete cotton tie you take iron, eut it into 11-feet lengths, paint it, and put a fastening or buckle on it. It is then fitted for use, although it may not actually be put ai'ound the cotton baie. Still, if it is fitted for such applica- tion, and no further mechanical treatment is needed, it is a cotton tie. The application of it to the baie is another thing, and does not at all concern the mechanical treatment or construction. So that it is for you to decide, under the evidence here, and upon the inspection of the article itself, whether or not this was a fabric of iron, and therefore a manufacture under the meaning of the portion of the tariff act t.o which I have called your attention. If it was, then it was not subject to the duty charged upon it, and the plaintifE would be enti- tled to recover the excess. �I do not deem it necessary to discuss the evidence in this case. I think the question is a very simple one, and I think it is for you to apply the evidence, and to use your own eyes in coming to a conclu- sion. �This is the condition in which the article is brought in, [exhibiting tie.] Because the buckle is attached to one piece does not make the slightest difiference. The buckles were evidently intended one for each separate piece, and can be so treated. �Now, taking this piece of iron 11 feet long, painted and with a buckle attached to it, does it need any further mechanical treatment to fit it for use as a cotton tie, and to be applied to a cotton baie ? If it does not, then it is a manufacture within the meaning of the act, and more than the regular duty authorized by law was exaoted. That is the testimony of the witnesses ; but, as I say, I do not intend to advert to that any further than simply to indicate what the testi- mony may be made to include in reference to this matter. But it is not improper to say that, in the judgment of the court, that is the undisputed evidence; that when this tie is taken and the ends bent around and the buckle put on it, it is a complete cotton tie, and may be used for bailing cotton. If it is such, then I say the plaintiff is entitled to recover. �A number of points have been presented here, only two or three of which I propose to notice, because I do not deem any more necessary. First, the plaintiff has asked the court to instruct the jury that if they find from the evidence that the articles are prepared for a spe- cial use, and that their use is fixed by the preparation which has been completed, so that naturally and economically they can be used for ��� �