
    HOLBROOK MFG. CO. et al. v. UNITED STATES.
    (Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
    November 13, 1909.)
    Nos. 5,417-5,422.
    Customs Duties (§ OSA) — Classjj'ication—Olive Oil.
    Certain olive oil found to be edible, and hold, therefore, to be excluded from Tariff Act July 24, 1897. c. 11, § 2, Free Dist, par. (¡26, 30 Stat. 199 (U. S. Comp. St. 1001, p. 1085), relating to olive oil “fit only” for manufacturing or mechanical purposes.
    (Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Customs Duties, Dec. Dig. § 38.]
    On Applications for Review of Decisions by the Board of United States General Appraisers.
    These cases are also entitled in the names of Swan & Finch Company, Oil Seeds Company, A. Klipstein & Co., Welch, Holme & Clark Company, and Arnold, Hoffman & Co. The decision below (G. A. (5,833 ; T. D. 29,388) affirmed the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York.
    Brown & Gerry (James E. Gerry, of counsel), for importers.
    D. Frank Dloyd, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen. (Charles Duane Baker, Sp. Atty., of counsel), for the United States.
    
      
      For other eases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PLATT, District Judge.

The question of fact in this case is simply and solely whether or not the olive oils covered by the invoices herein are fit or suitable for manufacturing or mechanical purposes and for no other (paragraph 626 of Free List, Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 2, 30 Stat. 199 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1685]), as contended by the importers. The Board, upon conflicting testimony, has found that .they were all edible oils (paragraph 40, same act). I do not think that the testimony so plainly points in the opposite direction that I am at liberty to decide the question of fact the other way, even if I felt like doing so; and after reading the testimony of Dr. Sharpies and Dr. Fuller, witnesses for the importers, I am unwilling to say that I should do so if I could.

Decision affirmed.  