Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/39

 24 PEDEEAL REPORTER. �no other purpose, then they belong to the class of manufactures not otherwise provided for ; that is, they are cotton ties. The court so instructs you upon this point. �The defendant has put the converse of that proposition: If the jury find that the hoops and bands of iron are not such a manufac- ture as to be known and distinguished as a manufacture of iron, they should find for the defendant. You are so instructed. �The eleventh point presented by the defendant is substantially the same thing : To constitute the material in question a manufacture within the meaning of the act of 1864, the jury must find that it is a completed product ready for the use for which it was designed, with- out any further manipulation or any more work being doue upon it, or any change being made upon it to fit it for that use. �That point is answered as follows: To withdraw the article in question from the category of hoop iron, the jury must be satisfied that it has been so manipulated as to change its distinctive char- acter, not as to the material of which it is made, eertainly, because in one sense it is hoop iron ; but whether it is a thing made out of hoop iron, or hoop iron in its original condition, converted into a completed fabric of iron, and thus prepared and ready for some spe- cial use, and so unfitted for economieal employment in the ordinary general use to which hoop iron may be applied without further mechanieal manipulation, is another question. �Now, gentlemen, I repeat that, in the judgment of the court, the only material inquiry for you here is whether this article has been subjected to such mechanieal treatment as to fit it completely for the special use for which it was designed; that is, bailing cotton. It is not necessary that it should be put around a cotton baie and fastened to it to make it complete. If it was completely prepared for that use, so that it could be used by the person who wished to put it around cotton baies, and needed no further mechanieal treatment, then it was a completed fabric, and a manufacture within the meaning of the act of congress, and so subject to a less duty than that exacted, and the plaintiff is entitled to recover. That is the simple question ; and as you decide that you decide this case, and find for the plaintiff or the defendant. �If you find for the plaintiff and determine that this is a complete article of manufacture, you will assess the damages by allowing to the plaintiff' what is agreed to have been the excess of duty charged by the collector. In the Indiana case the amount is agreed to be ��� �