
    HOLCOMB & CO. v. UNITED STATES.
    (Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
    June 28, 1910.)
    Nos. 5,046-5,052.
    Customs Duties (§ 37) — Classification—Bead Fringes — Ejusdem Generis —“Ornaments, Trimmings, and Other Articles in Part of Beads.”
    Bead fringes, which consist of beads strung on a cord or webbing and are used to decorate lamps as trimmings and shades, are not removed by the doctrine of ejusdem generis from the provision for “ornaments, Min-ings, and other articles * * * in part of beads,” In Tariff Act July 24, 1897, e. 11, § 1, Schedule N, par. 408, 30 Stat. 189 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1673).
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Customs Duties, Dec. Dig. § 37.]
    On Application for Review of Decisions by the Board of United States General Appraisers.
    
      There were also cases entitled in the names of C. M. Horch, of Horstmann, Von Hein & Co., of the Ideal Gas & Electric Company, of the Will & Baumer Company, of the H. Hohenstein Company, and of G. Hirsch’s Sons.
    The Board of General Appraisers affirmed the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York on the various importations in question.
    Comstock & Washburn (Albert H. Washburn, of counsel), for importers.
    D. Frank Lloyd, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Edwin R. Wakefield, Sp. Atty. of counsel), for the United States.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   HAZEL, District Judge.

The merchandise, consisting of beads-strung on a cord or webbing and known as “bead fringes,” is thought to come within the description of “ornaments, trimmings, and other-articles not specially provided for in this act, composed wholly or in part of beads or spangles made of glass,” etc. Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule N, par. 408, 30 Stat. 189 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p.* 1673). They are used to decorate lamps as trimmings and shades,, and I think the phrase “other articles” is broad enough to include such beads attached to a cord. Hirsch v. United States, 167 Fed. 309, 93 C. C. A. 61.

The importers argue that glass beads used for trimming lamps come under the doctrine of ejusdem generis, which keeps the importation from coming within the scope of paragraph 408; but, as intimated, said paragraph, though failing to specifically name the articles, contains a. description of the things included therein which is sufficient to identify the articles in question.

The case of United States v. Benziger, T. D. 30,386, recently decided by the Circuit Court of Appeals, is readily differentiated on the-ground that the rosaries, the articles there in question, were not used' for ornamental purposes. In view of what has been stated, the doctrine of ejusdem generis has no application.

The decision of the Board is affirmed.  