United States v. Sixty-seven Packages of Dry Goods. 17 H. not exceeding two years, one or both, at the discretion of the court." (5 Stats. at Large, 565, § 19.) The invoice spoken of in this section of the act, is one which does not represent truly the facts the importer is bound to dis *close at the date of his entry, and which are exhibited by [96] an original and true invoice, and where the misrepresentation, whether by falsehood, forgery, or fraud, is with the design to evade the duties. It is admitted that this act provides for cases never before comprehended in any revenue law. For the attempt to defraud is punished as well as the consummate effort. The system of the act of 1842 is thus disclosed: It relies upon a home valuation made by public officers, upon evidence, instead of a representation of cost by the importer, as the basis of value in the assessment; and it provides, by forfeiture, and fine, and imprisonment, against the false testimony of the importer. It compels the production of the original and true invoice, by a penal duty, by fine and imprisonment, and the power to take payment of duties in undervalued goods. There are, besides, provisions directed against smuggling. The act contains a selection from the various laws which had been passed by congress, whether in force, or otherwise, and introduces new securities for the collection of the revenue. Every case provided for by the system first considered, is distinctly and efficiently provided for in the act of 1842. The principle applicable to such a state of facts, is laid down by this court in Norris v. Crocker, 13 How. 429. "That where a new statute covers the whole subject-matter of an old one, adds offences, and prescribes different penalties for those enumerated in the old law, that then the former statute is repealed by implication, as the two provisions cannot stand together;" and that where "a recent statute covers every offence found in the former act," and prescribes a new and different penalty, recoverable by indictment, "it is plainly repugnant." The statement of the systems adopted at the different periods, will show that the importance of the 66th section of the act of 1799 had ceased, and that the retention of it, as a cumulative penalty, would accomplish no good, and serve only to involve the government in litigation, that the revenue officers might claim the penalty. 17 H. 97, 98, 99; 22 H. 299. 33. United States v. One Package of Merchandise. 17 H. THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiffs in Error, v. NINE CASES OF SILK HATS. PAUL TRICON, Claimant. 17 H. 97. The decision in the next preceding case, again affirmed. ERROR to the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana. NELSON, J., delivered the opinion of the court. This was a libel of information, filed in the district court of the United States v. Nine Cases of Silk Hats, for condemnation and forfeiture, on the allegation that the entry of the goods at the custom house was made upon an invoice, in which they were invoiced at a less sum than the actual cost at the place of exportation, with a design to evade the duties. After hearing the evidence, the court instructed the jury that the 66th section of the act of 1799,' which imposed a forfeiture of the goods in question, had been repealed, and was not in force at the time of the entry at the customs; and gave judgment for the claimant. On a writ of error to the circuit court, this judgment was affirmed. For the reasons given in the case of the United States v. SixtySeven Packages of Dry Goods, the judgment must be reversed, and the record remitted to the court below for further proceedings, in conformity to the opinion of this court. Campbell, J., dissented. THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiffs in Error, v. ONE PACKAGE of MerCHANDISE. LION, PINSARD, AND Co., Claimants. 17 H. 98. The decision in the two preceding cases affirmed. ERROR to the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana. NELSON, J., delivered the opinion of the court. The libel of information was filed in this case in the district court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana, for the condemnation and forfeiture of one package of goods; the entry, as charged, having been made upon an invoice in which the goods 11 Stats. at Large, 677. United States v. One Case of Clocks. 17 H. were invoiced under their actual cost value at the place of exportation, with a design to defraud the duties. After the evidence was heard, the jury, under the instructions, found a verdict for the plaintiffs. The court afterwards arrested the judgment for the plaintiffs, and directed a judgment for the claimants, on the ground that the 66th section of the act of 1799,' had been repealed; which judgment was affirmed, on error, by the circuit court. For the reason given in the case of The United States v. Sixtyseven Packages of Dry Goods, the judgment below must be reversed, and the record remitted to the court for further proceedings, in conformity to the opinion of this court. Campbell, J., dissented. THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiffs in Error, v. ONE CASE OF CLOCKS. LION, PINSARD, AND Co., Claimants. 17 H. 99. The decision in the three preceding cases affirmed. ERROR to the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana. NELSON, J., delivered the opinion of the court. This is a libel of information, filed in the district court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana, for the condemnation and forfeiture of one case of clocks, for entry of goods upon an invoice, in which the goods were invoiced at a sum less than the actual cost value at the place of exportation, with a design to evade the duties. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, upon which a judgment was rendered; but afterwards, the court arrested and set aside the judgment, and gave judgment for the claimants, dismissing the libel, which was affirmed on error in the circuit court. For the reasons given in the case of The United States v. Sixtyseven Packages of Dry Goods, the judgment of the court below must be reversed, and the record remitted for further proceedings, in conformity to the opinion of this court. Campbell, J., dissented. 11 Stats. at Large, 677. Lawrence v. Minturn. 17 H. ALEXANDER M. LAWRENCE and others Claimants of the SHIP HORNET, Appellants, v. CHARLES MINTURN. 17 H. 100. Primâ facie the consignee of goods under a bill of lading, has the legal title and a beneficial interest in the goods, and may sue the carrier for the non-delivery thereof. Powers of the master, respecting jettisons, stated. There is no implied warranty by the owners, that the vessel shall prove sufficiently buoyant to carry cargo placed on deck under a contract with the shipper. He takes the risk of perils, arising solely from that place of stowage in which he agreed his property should be carried. THE case is stated in the opinion of the court. Cutting, for the appellants. Lord, contrà. * [* 105] CURTIS, J., delivered the opinion of the court. This is an appeal from a decree of the district court of the United States for the northern district of California, sitting in admiralty. The appellee filed his libel in that court against the ship Hornet, for the non-delivery of two steam-boilers and chimneys shipped on board that vessel in the port of New York, and consigned to the libellant. The appellants intervened, as owners of the ship, and upon the pleadings and proofs, the district court made a decree in favor of the libellant. The claimants appealed. The first question to be determined on the appeal is, whether the libellant had a right to sue in his own name. The facts bearing on this question are, that on the 19th day of July, 1851, Edward Minturn, at New York, made a contract with the agent of the ship Hornet, which was reduced to writing, as follows: Memorandum of agreement to ship on board the ship Hornet, by Edward Minturn, Esq., two boilers, two chimneys or steam-chests, smoke-pipes in sheets, and some grate bars, in all about forty tons weight, from this port to San Francisco, California, for the sum of forty-five hundred dollars, with five per cent. primage: the whole to go on deck, except the grate-bars and sheet-iron for smoke-pipe. It is understood that the shipper is to put them on the deck of the vessel at his expense, and the ship is to discharge them as soon as convenient, and they are to be received at Cunningham's wharf, in San Francisco, without other than the ordinary charge per day for discharging. It is further understood that the said boilers are [*106] to be ready to go on board the vessel on the ninth day of Lawrence v. Minturn. 17 H. August, or as soon thereafter as the ship may require them giving shipper two days' notice thereof (Signed) EDWARD MINTURN. E. B. SUTTON, Agent for the Ship Hornet. It appeared that the boilers and chimneys were manufactured in New York, upon an order given by James Cunningham; that they were intended for the steamer Senator, a boat then in California; that James Cunningham and Edward Minturn were part owners of The Senator, and that they paid the makers for these articles. bill of lading was as follows: The 210. Shipped, in good order and well-conditioned, by Edward Minturn, on board the ship called The Hornet, whereof Lawrence is master, now lying in the port of New York, and bound for San Francisco, California, to say: two boilers, and two steam-chimneys for ditto, eight pieces sheet-iron work, three pieces pipe, one band, two hundred and four grate-bars, sixteen grate-bar bearers, eight boiler bearers, six man-hole plates, eight boiler doors, one bundle (four) bolts, two boxes; the whole to be discharged as soon as convenient, and to be received at Cunningham's wharf, in San Francisco, without other than the usual or ordinary charge for discharging per day; being marked and numbered as in the margin. Freight 5 per cent. primage $4,500 00 $4,725 00 E. B. SUTTON, 84 Wall street. Contents unknown. Goods to be delivered at the vessel's tackles when ready to be delivered. Not accountable for breakage, leakage, or rust; freight payable before delivery, if required; and are to be delivered in like order and condition, at the port of San Francisco, (the dangers of the seas, fire, and collision only excepted,) unto Charles Minturn, or to his assigns, he or they paying freight for the said boilers, steam-chimneys, and other iron work, forty-five hundred dollars, with five per cent. primage, and average accustomed. Dispatch line California pack ets. In witness whereof the master or purser of the said vessel hath affirmed to four bills of lading, all of this tenor and date, one of which being accomplished, the others to stand void. Dated in New York, the 19th day of August, 1851. (Signed) WILLIAM W. LAWRENCE. Upon the proofs, we are of opinion that the libellant had a right to sue the carrier in his own name. He is the consignee named in |