or the use to which it may be applied. Hahn v. U. S., 100 Fed. 635, 40 C. C. A. 622. One of the protestants' witnesses, when questioned as to the similarity of manufacture and material of bok ale and ale and beer, testified as follows: "Q. Can you state from your own knowledge whether bok ale is manufactured in the same manner as beer or ale? A. In some respects the processes are similar. Q. In what respects do they differ? A. Beer is allowed to contain more alcohol. This is practically a beer without alcohol, or we limit the amount of alcohol so as to bring it within the classification of a nonalcoholic beverage. Q. Will you tell me, so far as the material is concerned, how this article differs from ordinary lager beer-only as to material? A. It does not differ so very much from it. First of all, a kind of ferment is used for lager beer, which imparts a peculiar flavor. Lager beer is potable when finished. This, we claim, is not potable." Thus it appears that the process of manufacture of the merchandise under consideration is practically the same as that by which beer is produced, the only difference being that beer is allowed to contain more alcohol, and this article is practically a beer without alcohol. As to the material of composition, there is little difference. In these two particulars-process of manufacture and material-the merchandise assimilates ale or beer sufficiently to justify the classification made by the collector, and we so find. The protest is overruled and the decision of the collector is affirmed. Defrees, Buckingham, Ritter & Campbell (Cyrus Heren, of counsel), for importers. Edwin W. Sims, U. S. Atty., and D. Frank Lloyd, Asst. U. S. Atty. Gen. (William A. Robertson, of counsel), for the United States. CARPENTER, District Judge. Decision affirmed. LUYTIES BROS. v. UNITED STATES. (Circuit Court, S. D. New York. June 30, 1910.) No. 5,468. CUSTOMS DUTIES (§ 36*)-CLASSIFICATION "LITHOGRAPHIC PRINTS" BOUND. Calendars composed of lithographic sheets with a metal strip at each end, and having a calendar pad composed of lithographic sheets attached thereto, the lithographic prints being the most important feature of the importation, are dutiable as lithographic prints bound, under Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule M, par. 400, 30 Stat. 188 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1672), rather than as printed matter (par. 403, 30 Stat. 189 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1673]), or as manufactures of paper (par. 407, 30 Stat. 189 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1673]). [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Customs Duties, Cent. Dig. § 118; Dec. Dig. § 36.*] On Application for Review of a Decision by the Board of United States General Appraisers. Hatch & Clute (Walter F. Welch, of counsel), for importers. D. Frank Lloyd, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Martin T. Baldwin, on the brief), for the United States. HAZEL, District Judge. The question presented by the protest involves calendars of a sheet of paper with metal strips at the ends and containing a lithographed illustration and advertising matter, and For other cases see same topic & § NUMBER in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes having attached thereto lithographed strips of paper composing a calendar pad. They were held dutiable under paragraph 400 (Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule M, 30 Stat. 188 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1672]). as lithographic prints, less than /1000 of an inch in thickness at 20 cents per pound. The importer claims that the merchandise is assessable for duty at 35 per cent. ad valorem under paragraph 407 of said act, as manufactures of paper not specially provided for, or, under paragraph 403, as printed matter at 25 per cent. ad valorem. It appears that all the advertising matter on the calendars was lithographic, and unquestionably they would have been assessed for duty under paragraph 400 if the prints had been brought into the country loose and not attached in calendar form. That the sheets were attached makes no difference, for the tariff provision is broad enough to cover them whether bound or unbound. They were advanced in condition, and it would be unreasonable to suppose that Congress placed a certain duty on separate sheets of lithographic prints, and intended that such sheets fastened together should be entitled to entry at a lower rate of duty. The importer relies on the principle of Knauth, Nachod & Kuhne v. United States (C. C.) 155 Fed. 144, where it was held that an article composed of cardboard which had a lithographic print upon it was not dutiable as lithographic print under the paragraph in question, but that case seems to me to be inapt. The lithographic prints were used to decorate an article such as a wall pocket, which is hung on the wall as a receptacle for small household articles, and, moreover, the lithographic prints were not the distinctive feature of the articles. They were simply used by the manufacturer to embellish or decorate the cardboard boxes, while in the present case the merchandise consists of lithographic prints which in themselves are the most important feature of the importation. The decision of the board is affirmed. END OF CASES IN VOL. 180. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. U. S., 175 U. S. 211, 244, 20 Sup. Ct. 96, 108, 44 L. Ed. 136.. 163 Adler v. Hammond, 104 Fed. 862, 44 C. C. A. .509, 510 Adler v. Jones, 109 Fed. 967, 48 C. C. A. 761.. 509 Aerkfetz v. Humphreys, 145 U. S. 418, 12 Sup. Ct. 835, 36 L. Ed. 758. Arkansas v. Kansas & Texas Coal Co., 183 U. S. 185, 188, 22 Sup. Ct. 47, 48. 46 L. Ed. 144.. Armstrong v. American Exch. Bank, 133 U. 433, 469, 10 Sup. Ct. 450, 33 L. Ed. 747.. Asbell v. Kansas, 209 U. S. 251, 256, 28 Sup. Ct. 485, 52 L. Ed. 778.. 316 S. 524 564 Asher v. Texas, 128 U. S. 129, 9 Sup. Ct. 1, 32 L. Ed. 368.. 214 49 Atkinson v. Dunlap, 50 Me. 111, 116. 147 Atlantic Coast Line v. Wharton, 207 U. S. 328, 28 Sup. Ct. 121, 52 L. Ed. 230.. ..1011 Atlantic Delaine Co. v. James, 94 U. S. 207, 24 L. Ed. 112.. 28 835 Agricultural Ass'n v. State, 71 Md. 86, 18 Atl. 37, 17 Am. St. Rep. 507.. Ah Chong, In re (C. C.) 2 Fed. 733, 739. Ah Jow, In re (C. C.) 29 Fed. 181.. 214 Ah Yup, In re, 5 Sawy. 155, Fed. Cas. No. 104.. 695 Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Thompson, 200 U. S. 206, 26 Sup. Ct. 161, 50 L. Ed. 441.. .204, 207 Alexander, The (D. C.) 104 Fed. 907.. Alexandria & F. R. Co. v. Herndon, 87 Va. 193, 12 S. E. 289.. 811 696 Auffmordt v. Rasin, 102 U. S. 620, 26 L. Ed. 262.. 943 208 517 13 Allen v. Sewall, 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 327. 597 Allen v. U. S., 164 U. S. 492-501, 17 Sup. Ct. 154, 41 L. Ed. 528.. 347 Allis v. U. S., 155 U. S. 117, 121, 122, 15 Sup. Ct. 36, 39 L. Ed. 91.. Allis Co. v. Reilley, 143 Fed. 298, 74 C. C. A. 436.. 391 Alvin Mfg. Co. v. Scharling (C. C.) 100 Fed. 87 .986, 987 America, The, 92 U. S. 432, 23 L. Ed 724.. 609 American Ass'n v. Innis, 109 Ky. 595, 60 S. W. 388 852 American Bible Soc. v. Price, 110 U. S. 61, 3 Sup. Ct. 440, 28 L. Ed. 70... 208 American Box Co. v. Crosman (C. C.) 57 Fed. 1021, 1029. 304 American Car Co. v. Brinkman, 146 Fed. 712, 77 C. C. A. 138.. 38 American Cereal Co. v. Eli Pettijohn Cereal Co. (C. C.) 70 Fed. 276. 248 American Electrical Novelty & Mfg. Co. v. Acme Electric Lamp Co. (C. C.) 98 Fed. 895... American Electric Novelty Co. v. Newgold (C. C.) 99 Fed. 567... Barnet v. National Bank, 98 U. S. 555, 25 L. Ed. 212 527 American Sewage Disposal Co. V. Pawtucket (C. C.) 132 Fed. 35; 138 Fed. 811, 71 C. C. A. 177; 146 Fed. 753, 77 C. C. A. 243.. Barrow v. Hunton, 99 U. S. 80, 25 L. Ed. 407.. 568, 570 Barry v. Edmunds, 116 U. S. 550, 6 Sup. Ct. 501, 29 L. Ed. 729.. 887 320 American Steel & Wire Co. v. Speed, 192 U. S. Bartlett v. Columbus, 101 Ga. 300, 28 S. E. 599, 44 L. R. A. 795.. 602 500, 24 Sup. Ct. 365, 48 L. Ed. 538.. 255 American Steel & Wire Co. v. Wire Drawers' Unions 1 & 3 (C. C.) 90 Fed. 598.. Barton v. Barbour, 104 U. S. 126, 135, 26 L. Ed. 672 655 898 American Surety Co. v. Pauly, 170 U. S. 133, 18 Sup. Ct. 552, 42 L. Ed. 977.. 688 Ames v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. (C. C.) 166 Fed. 820.. 825 An Alien, In re, Fed. Cas. No. 201a; 7 Hill (N. Y.) 137.. Anderson v. Creamery Package Mfg. Co., 8 Idaho, 200, 67 Pac. 493, 56 L. R. A. 554, 101 Am. St. Rep. 188... ..140, 142 Bausman's Appeal, 90 Pa. 178. 673 Beautell v. Magone, 157 U. S. 154, 15 Sup. Ct. 566, 39 L. Ed. 654... 505 81 180 F.-65 (1025) Bowman v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 125 U. S. 465, 8 Sup. Ct. 689, 1062, 31 L. Ed. 700. Boyd v. Alabama, 94 U. S. 645, 24 L. Ed. 302. 131 Boyd v. Janesville Hay Tool Co., 158 U. S. 260, 15 Sup. Ct. 837, 39 L. Ed. 973.. 766 Bradford v. Belknap Co. (C. C.) 105 Fed. 63, 66.. 304 Bradford v. Jenkins, 41 Miss. 334. 647 Camden v. Doremus, 3 How. 515, 530, 11 L. Ed. 705 37 255 201 Camille, In re (C. C.) 6 Fed. 256. 695 Bradley v. New York Cent. R. R., 62 N. Y. 99.. 391 355 Campbell v. Roddy, 44 N. J. Eq. 244, 14 Atl. 279, 6 Am. St. Rep. 889. 79 Cantrell v. Wallick, 117 U. S. 689, 6 Sup. Ct. 970, 29 L. Ed. 1017.. 475 80 Cardwell v. American Bridge Co., 113 U. S. 205, 5 Sup. Ct. 423, 28 L. Ed. 959. Carneal v. Banks, 10 Wheat. 181, 188, 6 L. Ed. 297 206 Carpenter, In re, 109 Fed. 558, 48 C. C. A. 545... 604 Carr v. Hamilton, 129 U. S. 255, 9 Sup. Ct. 295, 32 L. Ed. 669.. .1011 904 |