UNITJSD STATEB V. KBYE3. 877 �alty or tax, such sum as was required, and was discharged. In May, 1870, a United States inspecter of tobacco examined the store of the respondent in Concord, in this district, and found at the end of some boxes, wbich were opened and stamped, a "lump" or bunch of tobacco not in any box, and unstamped, containing some 20 or 25 pounds. He also examined the respondent's bam, wbich was some quarter of a mile away from bis place of business, and there he found two barrels, one full and the other two-thirds full of tobacco; some of the same kind as the "lump" he had seen at the store; some "cavendish" in plugs, and some "navy" — different kinds ; some loose; some in boxes; some in lumps, unstamped. There were 166 pounds of it, — some 60 pounds less than he had purohased of Russell & Willey. The respond- ent's counsel requested the court to instruct the jury : �(1) That if the tobacco was refuse and worthlesa, the remains of various lots accumulated by a dealer prier to the act imposing taxes on distilled spir- its, tobacco, and for other purpoaes, "approved July 20, 1868," then the re- spondent is not liable for having said tobacco in his possession unstamped; �(2) that if the tobacco was refuse and worthless, being the remains of lots which had been manufactured prier to the passage of said law of 1868, and the respondent bought it for the purpose of remanufacture into snufE and cigars, then the respondent is not liable, under this indictment, to the penal- ties imposed by the seventy-flrst section of said law, for having the tobacco in his possession unstamped, and in the condition in which he bought it; and, �(3) that if the government tax had been paid on said tobacco prior to the time when it is alleged in the indictment that the respondent had the same in liis possession unstamped, then the respondent is not liable to the penalties imposed by said law of '1868 for having it in his possession unstamped. �The court refused these instructions, and charged the jury that if the respondent had in his possession manufactured tobacco un- stamped in any quantity, at the time charged in the indictment, whether the same was refuse and worthless or otherwise, they should find the respondent guilty; that whether it was the remains of various lots that had been manufactured before the passage of the act was immaterial, or whether the respondent bought it to re- mariufacture into snuff or cigars. The respondent, by his counsel, moves for a new trial, because the court refused to give the instruc- tions prayed for, and because of the instructions given. The re- spondent's counsel contends: �(1) That if the tobacco was refuse and worthless, the remains of various lots accumulated by a dealer prior to the act of July 20, 1868, then the de- fendant is not liable; (2) that if it were such tobacco as aforesaid and thus ��� �
