e'ab FEDERAL REPORTER. �clared by the supreme court as applicable to such cases. See, also, Herbert v. Butler, 14 Blatchf . 357 ; Eagle ManuJ 'g Go. T. Draper, Id. 334, �It is suggested that the rules of practice, under the New York code of procedure, entitle the plaintiff to relief. The rules of the state code of practice can have no application to writs of error and bills of exception in the United States courts — ^proceedings entirely unknown in the state practice in civil causes. �Motion denied. ���United States v. Fotjb Stand Casks, etc.* �(Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. January 31, 1881.) �1. Revenub Laws — Distillkd Spiiuts — Failuke to Stamp "Stand CaBKS" — FOKFBITURB— 'Conbtkuction DP Statute. �" Stand casks," forming part of the flxtures of a retail liquor saloon, and used for holding distilled spirits, are not required to be stamped, and their contents are not liable to forfeiture under section 32»9, Rev. St., beeause of tiie absence of suchyStamp. �Appeal frôm decree of district court dismissing a libel of information for forfeiture against certain easkis of distilled spirits. The district court had held that the contents of large ornamental casks, foxming part of the fixtures of a retail liquor store, and known as "stand casks," were not liable to forfeiture under section 3289, Eev. St., for want of a stamp. The case and opinion of the court were fuUy reported in 3 Fed. Eep. 20. The United States appealed to the circuit court. �Jolin K. Valentine, U. S. Dist. Att'y, for appellant. �Richard P. White, for appellee. �Decree affirmed, (no opinion.) �*Reported by Frank P. Prichard, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar. ����
