the collector of customs at the port of New York in assessing duty on the merchandise in question.

Howard T. Walden, for importers.
Henry C. Platt, Asst. U. S. Atty.

TOWNSEND, District Judge. The merchandise in question comprises lily buds imported from Bermuda. They were assessed for duty at 25 per cent. ad valorem, under the provisions of paragraph 251 of the act of July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule G, par. 251 (30 Stat. 170, U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1650), for "lilies * * * and natural flowers of all kinds, preserved or fresh, suitable for decorative purposes," and are claimed to be exempt from duty under the provisions of paragraph 617, § 2, c. 11, of the same act (30 Stat. 199, U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1685), as "vegetable substances, crude or unmanufactured, not otherwise specially provided for."

The evidence shows that the buds are designed for importation in condition to open into lilies in full bloom immediately upon their arrival at their destination in this country. They are therefore lilies within the provisions of said paragraph 251, and the decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

MEMORANDUM DECISIONS.

BILLMAN v. PARSCHEN. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. March 25, 1903.) No. 1,155. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio. Robert A. Castner, for appellant. Smith & Taft, for appellee. Dismissed.

BOISE CITY ARTESIAN HOT & COLD WATER CO., Limited, v. BOISE CITY, IDAHO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. May 25, 1903.) No. 914. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Idaho. Kingsbury & Kingsbury, for appellant. W. E. Borah and John J. Blake, for appellee. Before GILBERT and ROSS, Circuit Judges, and HAWLEY, District Judge.

PER CURIAM. The appellant filed a bill in equity against the appellee, setting forth as grounds for equitable relief the facts which are involved in the law case of Boise City Artesian Hot & Cold Water Company, Limited, v. Boise City, Idaho (just decided by this court), 123 Fed. 232. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the bill for want of equity. The appeal presents no points not involved in the discussion of the law case, and upon the reasoning of that opinion, and the authorities therein cited, the decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

CASTOR SOCKET CO. v. STANDARD CASTOR WHEEL CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. October 17, 1902.) No. 1,018. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Michigan. Taggart, Denison & Wilson, for appellant. Kingsley & Wicks, Willard Parker, and Felix Jellenik, for appellee. Dismissed.

CENTRAL DISTRICT & PRINTING TEL. CO. v. MIZER. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. July 22, 1903.) No. 1,203. In Error from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio. Gilbert, Hills & Van Derveer, for plaintiff in error. Lynch, Day & Day and W. L. Handley, for defendant in error. Dismissed.

(Circuit Court of

CENTRAL NAT. BANK OF CARTHAGE v. EVERETT. Appeals, Eighth Circuit. December 12, 1902.) No. 1,736. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kansas. Samuel McReynolds, John W. Halliburton, James S. Botsford, Buckner F. Deatherage, and Odus G. Young, for plaintiff in error. H. M. Beardsley, for defendant in error. Affirmed, with costs, without opinion.

CENTRAL TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK v. OLD COLONY TRUST CO. et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. July 7, 1903.) No. 1,237. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan. Butler Notman, Joline & Mynderse, and F. W. Stevens, for appellant. Dickinson, Stevenson, Cullen, Warren & Butzel, for appellees. Dismissed.

COLONIAL TRUST CO. v. BAILEY. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. May 5, 1903.) No. 1,218. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Ohio. Kline, Carr, Tolles & Goff, for appellant. John P. Bailey, for appellee. Dismissed.

DAVIS et al. v. DUGGAN. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. May 26, 1903.) No. 1,900. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kansas. David Overmyer, Frank Doster, John H. Atwood, and R. T. Herrick, for appellants. W. H. Rossington and Charles Blood Smith, for appellee. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to stipulation.

EAST TENNESSEE TEL. CO. v. MOORE. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. March 9, 1903.) No. 1,147. In Error from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Curtin & Haynes, for plaintiff in error. Williams & Bowman, for defendant in error. Dismissed.

In re GAFFNEY. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. May 5, 1903.) No. 35 Original. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Frank P. Blair, for petitioner. John S. Dean, for respondent. Dismissed, without costs to either party in this court, on motion of the petitioner.

GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. v. DOLAN. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. March 23, 1903.) No. 1,852. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Iowa. A. F. Call and Craig L. Wright, for plaintiff in error. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of plaintiff in error.

HALLWOOD CASH REGISTER CO. v. NATIONAL CASH REGISTER CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. March 6, 1903.) No. 1,192. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio. Edward Rector, for appellee. Dismissed.

HUMBIRD et al. v. AVERY et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. June 3, 1903.) No. 1,673. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota. C. W. Bunn, H. Oldenburg, William W. Billson, Chester A. Congdon, D. A. Dickinson, and James B. Kerr, for appellants. L. C. Harris, H. H. Hoyt, M. H. Stanford, and Benton Hanchett, for appellees. Stricken from the docket, the cause having been removed to the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari from that court.

KAPLAN v. McCORMICK HARVESTING MACH. CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. December 18, 1902.) No. 1,778. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota. A. C. Paul, for plaintiff in error. Robert H. Parkinson, for defendant in error. Dismissed, with costs, for want of prosecution.

MUNDAY v. JOHNSON et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. March 4, 1903.) No. 1,845. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Colorado. T. M. Patterson, E. F. Richardson, and H. N. Hawkins, for plaintiff in error. Chas. J. Hughes. Jr.. for defendants in error. Reversed, with costs, and remanded, with directions for further proceedings, etc., pursuant to stipulation of the parties.

NEW COLUMBUS WATCH CO. et al. v. NATIONAL CASH REGISTER CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. March 6, 1903.) No. 1,191. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio. Edward Rector, for appellee. Dismissed.

NICHOLS v. GLASIER. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. May 6, 1903.) No. 1,818. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Missouri. R. P. & C. B. Williams, for plaintiff in error. Gardiner Lathrop and Tom H. Reynolds, for defendant in error. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to rule 23 (90 Fed. clxiii, 31 C. C. A. clxiii), on motion of defendant in error. See 112 Fed. 877.

PITTSBURGH PLATE GLASS CO. v. MEDLEY. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. December 9, 1902.) No. 1,700. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri. James L. Blair and Robert A. Holland, Jr., for plaintiff in error. Sam Byrns and E. J. Bean, for defendant in error. Writ of error dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the stipulation of the parties.

RAEDER et al. v. KAUFFMAN. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. December 8, 1902.) No. 1,718. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri. Robert L. McLaran, William E.

Garvin, and James P. Dawson, for plaintiffs in error. J. E. McKeighan and M. F. Watts, for defendant in error. Affirmed, with costs, on authority of decision on former writ of error in Kauffman v. Raeder et al., 108 Fed. 171.

RITCHIE v. BURKE et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. October 15, 1902.) No. 1,114. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio. W. E. Young, for appellant. Stevenson Burke, Chas. Baird, and Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, for appellees. Dismissed.

ROGERS et al. v. HILL. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. May 5, 1903.) No. 1,763. In Error to the Court of Appeals of the United States in the Indian Territory. Dorset Carter, for plaintiffs in error. Cherryhomes

& Cherryhomes, for defendant in error. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to stipulation, and remanded to the United States Court, Southern District of the Indian Territory.

ROOT v. FRIZZELL. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. May 19, 1903.) No. 1,864. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska. H. C. Brome, John L. Webster, and A. H. Burnett, for plaintiff in error. C. J. Smyth and Ed P. Smith, for defendant in error. Reversed, without costs to either party in this court, and without an opinion, and remanded, with directions for further proceedings.

SHAW v. CITY OF COVINGTON et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. December 13, 1902.) No. 1,165. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Ernst Cassatt & McDougall, Foraker, Outcalt, Granger & Prior, for appellant. F. J. Hanlon, for appellees. Dismissed.

SPENCER v. COWEN et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. May 6, 1903.) No. 1,080. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Kittridge & Wilby, for appellant. Judson Harmon, Harlan Cleveland, Charles H. Stephens, and Thomas B. Paxton, for appellees. Dismissed.

THOMAS v. COUNCIL BLUFFS CANNING CO. et al. COLLINS v. SAME. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. May 6, 1903.) Nos. 1,783, 1,784. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Iowa. Warren Switzler and Jacob Sims, for plaintiffs in error. John N. Baldwin and George S. Wright, for defendants in error. Affirmed, with costs, without an opinion.

In re TINLEY. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. December 15, 1902.) No. 27 Original. Petition for Review. Geo. H. Stillman, for petitioner. Finley Burke, for respondent. Dismissed, at costs of petitioner, pursuant to stipulation of the parties.

UNITED STATES v. GOUCHENOUR et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. January 7, 1903.) No. 1,101. In Error from the District

Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Wm. D. Wright, for plaintiff in error. Shields & Mountcastle, Shoun & Susong, and W. J. McSween, for defendants in error. Dismissed.

UNITED STATES v. RICKERT. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circult. May 6, 1903.) No. 1,580. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of South Dakota. James D. Elliott and William G. Porter, for appellant. A. B. Kittridge and W. D. Lane, for appellee. Reversed, without costs to either party in this court, and remanded, with direc tions to enter a decree for the complainant, etc.

UNITED STATES SAVINGS & LOAN CO. v. PARKER et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. May 25, 1903.) No. 916. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Oregon. J. Thorburn Ross, E. B. Seabrook, Wm. A. Munly, and John K. Kollock, for appellant. J. Q. A. Bowlby, for appellee H. B. Parker. Before GILBERT, ROSS, and MORROW, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. On the authority of The Pacific States Savings, Loan and Building Company, a corporation, v. Lizzie A. Green et al. (just decided) 123 Fed. 43, the judgment is reversed, and cause remanded to the court below, with directions to overrule the demurrer to the bill, with leave to the defendants to answer.

W. A. DOODY CO. et al. v. B. T. ADAMS & CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. June 20, 1903.) No. 1,232. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Georgia. Before PARDEE, MCCORMICK, and SHELBY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Finding no element of fraud or illegal preference in this case, the decree of the District Court is in all respects affirmed.

WELCH v. JOSLYN. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. June 17, 1903.) No. 1,922. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska. Carlos S. Andrews, for plaintiff in error. Connell & Ives, for defendant in error. Dismissed, without costs to either party in this court, pursuant to stipulation of the parties.

WHITTAKER v. COWEN et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. May 6, 1903.) No. 1,079. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Martin M. Durrett, for appellant. Judson Harmon, Thomas B. Paxton, Kittridge & Wilby, Chas. H. Stephens, and Harlan Cleveland, for appellees. Dismissed.

UNITED STATES v. SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO. et al. (Circuit Court, S. D. California. June 15, 1903.) No. 979. The United States Attorney General, the United States Attorney, and Joseph H. Call, Sp. Asst. U. S. Atty. Graves, O'Melveny & Shankland, J. W. Swanwick, Russ Avery, Wm. F. Herrin, and Win. Singer, Jr., for defendants.

ROSS, Circuit Judge. The views expressed by this court in the case of Southern Pacific Railroad Company v. Brown et al. (C. C.) 68 Fed. 333, and in the case of United States v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company et al. (C. C.)