United States v. Fry

48 F. 713, 1892 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6
District Court, E.D. Louisiana·Decided January 14, 1892·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Billikgs, J.

This is an information whereby the United States seeks to recover $400 from tho defendant, who was master of the British steamship Rhine, as a penalty for a violation of section 50 of the act of 1799, (sections 2872-2874, Rev. St.1) The case shows that the defendant was master of the Rhine; that a compass, which was a part of the apparel and tackle of the vessel, being by law a necessary adjunct of the life-boat, was, without the knowledge of the master, stolen by one of the mariners, and taken on shore without any permit, and not in open day. The question submitted by the defendant’s attorney is whether the com[714] pass was merchandise, within the meaning of section 2878 of the Revised Statutes. This question was decided by Justice Story in U. S. v. Chain Cable, 2 Story, 362, against the United States. He held that appurtenances or equipments of a ship are not merchandise. I find no authority to the contrary. On the other hand, the defendant’s counsel has cited several authorities tending to establish that merchandise includes only cargo. My conclusion is that the judgment must be in favor of the defendant.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Fry, 48 F. 713, 1892 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6 (E.D. La. 1892).

48 F. 713 (United States v. Fry) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Goldman v. United States
263 F. 340 (Fifth Circuit, 1920)