United States v. Auffmordt

This is an action brought by the United States in the district court of the United States for the Southern district of New York against Clement A. Auffmordt, John F. Degener, William Degener, and Adolph William Von Kessler, composing the firm of C. A. Auffmordt & Co., to recover the sum of $321,519.29, with interest. The complaint alleges violations by the defendants of statutes of the United States in respect to entries of imported merchandise made by the defendants in 1879, 1880, 1881, and 1882, the value of such merchandise being the above-named sum, and claims that, by reason of the acts of the defendants alleged in the complaint, the defendants have forfeited such value to the United States. The defendants put in an answer containing a general denial, and the case was tried in the district court before a jury.

After the case was opened to the jury on the part of the United States, and before any testimony was offered, the defendants moved, upon such opening, that the court direct a verdict for the defendants, on the ground that there was no statute of the United States whereby the value of the merchandise could be recovered by reason of the acts alleged to have been committed by the defendants as consigness of the goods, which was the capacity in which they received and entered the goods, the goods being the property of the manufacturers of them in Switzerland, and being consigned to the defendants for sale on commission. The facts sought to be proved against the defendants were that they, knowingly and with intent to defraud the revenue, entered the goods at in voice prices lower than their actual market value at the time and place of exportation. The court ruled that there was no existing statute of the United States under which the plaintiff could recover upon any possible proof, and h at a verdict must be directed for the defendants. 19 Fed. Rep. 893. The plaintiffs excepted to this ruling.

''Sol. Gen. Jenks'', for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 199-202 intentionally omitted]

H. E. Tremaine and C. M. Da Costa, for defendants in error.

BLATCHFORD, J.