
    UNITED STATES v. BUTLER BROS.
    (Circuit Court, N. D. Illinois.
    May 27, 1910.)
    No. 29,587 (2,080).
    Customs Duties (§ 37) — Classification—“Dolls”—Bath Babies — Position Babies.
    Bath babies and position babies are “dolls,” within the meaning of Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedule N, par. 418, 30 Stat. 191 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1674), and are dutiable as such, rather than as china toys, under Schedule B, par. 95, 30 Stat. 156 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1633).
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Customs Duties, Dec. Dig. § 37.]
    On Application for Review of a Decision by the Board of United States General Appraisers.
    The Board of General Appraisers in the decision below sustained the importers’ protests against the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of Chicago. The assessment was under Tariff Act July 24, 1897, c. 11, § 1, Schedulé B, par. 95, while the importers contended for classification under Schedule N, par. 418, the pertinent provisions of which read as follows:
    “95. GEina * * * ware, including * * * toys * * * decorated or ornamented in any manner.”
    “418. Dolls, doll heads, toy marbles of whatever materials composed, and all other toys not composed of * * * china, * * * not specially provided for in this act.”
    The opinion filed by the Board of General Appraisers reads in part as follows:
    “HAY, General Appraiser. The appraiser returned the merchandise in question as ‘position babies’ and ‘bath babies.’ * * * The samples in the case at bar make it perfectly clear that the merchandise in question must be classified as dolls, to come under the toy paragraph, as they are composed of china or bisque, and toys composed of these materials are expressly excepted from the operation of that paragraph. From the testimony in the case, however, and an examination of the samples, we are convinced that the merchandise in question falls within the definition of the word ‘dolls.’ In the Century Dictionary it is said that a doll is a ‘puppet representing a child, usually a little girl (but also sometimes a boy or a man, as a soldier, etc.), used as a toy by children, especially by girls.’ The articles in question, we think, respond to this definition, and the testimony in the case at bar reinforces this conclusion. The protests are therefore sustained and the collector directed to reliquidate the entries accordingly.”
    Edwin W. Sims, U. S. Atty., and D. Frank Lloyd, Asst. U. S. Atty. Gen. (William A. Robertson, Special Atty., of counsel), for the United States.
    Lester C. Childs, for importers.
    
      
       For other cases see same topic & § number in Deo. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   CARPENTER, District Judge.

Decision affirmed.  