
    UNITED STATES v. CURLEY et al.
    (Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
    February 7, 1895.)
    No. 1,876.
    1. Customs Duties — Act of October 1, 1890 — Cooks’ Knives.
    Certain knives, used in the kitchen by cooks, held to be dutiable under paragraph 167, and not as a manufacture of metal, under paragraph 216, of the act of October 1, 1890.
    
      2. Same — Importer’s Protest.
    The importer is bound by his protest and cannot go outside of it
    Appeal by the United States from a decision of the board of general appraisers reversing the action of the collector in assessing duty upon certain knives under paragraph 167 of the tariff act of 1890.
    Wallace Macfarlane, U. S. Atty., and Henry 0. Platt, for the United States.
    Edward Hartley, for importers.
   OOXE, District Judge

(orally). The question in this cause is whether or not the importation, which was assessed by the collector as a cook’s knife, should have been classified as a manufacture of metal under paragraph 215 of the tariff act of 1890. The uncontra-dicted evidence shows that the importation in question is either a cook’s knife, a kitchen knife, or a butcher’s knife. These knives are all provided for in paragraph 167 and each is a more specific designation than a “manufacture of metal.” As the importers only protest upon the ground that the importation is a manufacture of metal, it is manifest that the decision of the board of general appraisers should be reversed.  