Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/597

XINITED STATES T.- THHEE' TKUNKS. 583 �valley." Although he died with the second codicil unchanged, as te wrote it in January, 1875, did he intend that the $20,000 which he had paid to those two institutions between the date of that codioil and the time of his death should be deducted from the $40,000 whicb he had given to each, or that the bequest should remain as though he had not paid the $10,000 to each in January, 1876 ? �It seems to me, taking the general scope and purpose of the orig- inal will, as -ffell as the first and second codicil, together, that the language of the original will, by which any donation made during his life-time was tobe deducted from the legacy and bequest in favor of such institution, ought to be considered as applicable to the bequest in the second codicil to Hamilton and Yale Colleges, and therefore a deduction should be made of the amount which he had paid to each between the date of the second codicil and the time of his death. ���United States v. Theee Teunks, etc. �(Ditt/riet Court, D. Calif or nia. 1881.) �1. Revenue —Phnaltibb and Fohi'bitubes— Imports— Ket. St. } 2809 — Act op �Jdnb 22, 1874, § 16. �To enforce a forfeiture under section 2809 of the Revised Statutes, which relates to the importation of merchandise into the United States from abroad, the government must show affirmatively an "actual intention to defraud," under section 16 of the act of June 22, 1874. �2. Case Stated. �Where a libel for information was filed against a vessel's hoatswain to enforce a forfeiture, under section 2809 of the Revised Btatijites, for attempting to im- port foreign goods without entering them in the vessel's manifest, held, that it must be dismissed, in the absence of any attempt at concealment and in view of the fact that the practice of making such importations had heen tolerated and apparently recognized as legal by the custom-house officiais, and the further fact that the boatswain, a native of China, had no reaaon to suppose that he was thereby violating the law. �HoFFMAN, D. J. The libel for information in this case is filed to enforce a forfeiture under section 2809 of the Revised Statutes. That section is as follows : �" If any merchandise is brought into the United States in any vessel what- ever from any foreign port without having such a manifest on board, or which shall not be included or described in the manifest, or sliall not agree there- with, the master shall be liable to a penalty equal to the value of such mer- chandise not included in such manifest, and all such merchandise not iiicluded in the manifest, belonging or consigned to the master, mate, officers, or orew of such vessel, shall be forfeited." ��� �