AVm. Astor, the plaintiff in error, a
citizen of the United States, arrived
home from a visit to Europe in Sep
tember, with his family’, oy vessel,
aud brought with him wearing ap
parel bought there for his and their
use* to be worn here during the season
then approaching. It was not excess
ive in quantity for persons of their
means, habits and station in life, and
their ordit.ary outfit for winter. A
part of the articles had not been worn,
and duties were exacted ou all these
articles.
The court holds under section 2,505,
revised statues, exempting from duty
“wearing apparel in actual usy and
other personal effects not merchan
dise,” that the proper rule to be ap
plied was to exempt from duty such
articulcs as fulfilled the following
conditions:
ARTICLES EXEMPT FROM DUTY.
First, wearing apparel owned by a
passenger and in condition to be worn
at once, without further manufacture.
Second, brought with him as a pas
| sanger and intended for use or wear
himself or his family, who accom
panied him as passengers, and not for
sale or purchase, or imported for
other persons or to be given away.
Third, suitable for the season of the
year which was immediately approach
ing at the time of arrival.
Fourth, not exceeding in quantity,
quality or value, what the passenger
was in the habit of ordinarly provi
ding for himself and family at that
time, and keeping on hand for his and
i their reasonable wants in view of
their means, habits and station in life,
even though such articles had not
j been actually worn.
The judgment of the circuit court
was reversed, aud the case remanded
with instructions to award anew
trial.
