Samuel Blatchford

“ The plaintiffs' counsel read in evidence a decision of the treasury department, made in 1874, to the effect that calf hair and cotton goods were held to be dutiable, under section 2499, Rev. St., at the highest rate at which any of their component parts was chargeable, namely, cotton, and not under the provision for manufactures of hair. This would have given a duty of 35 per cent. ad valorem. But it clearly appeared at the trial that the duty assessed of 50 cents a pound, and, in addition thereto, 35 per cent. ad valorem, was assessed under the erroneous view that the goods contained wool. ”

“ We are of opinion that the question of the similitude was one of fact, which should have been submitted to the jury, under proper instructions. As there was error in the particular mentioned, we do not deem it proper to consider any of the other questions raised and discussed by counsel. ”