188 VSDEBAL BEFOBTEB. �in the assignee, Vliere the interests are adverse, and have so existeà for more than two years from the time when the cause of the action aocrued for or against the assignee." In Gifford V. Helms^QB U. S. 248, the same language is held. We do net see how we ean avoid giving effect to the statute of limii;atîons, (U. S. Eev. St. § 5057.) �That part of the prayer of the petitioners must be. denied, but they can prove the claim as an unsecured on% subject, however, to any defence the assignee may make to the amount or validity and accuracy of the items. �The petitioners must pay the costs. ���United States v. Thibtt-Two Baeebls of Distilled �Spieits.* �{District Court, 8. D. Ohio. November, 1880.) �1. Intkbnai, Retenub Law — Wholesai-b Liquoe Dealer— Chanoi! oî" Package — Addition of Watbb. — The mere addition of water to packages of distilled spirits, upon which the tax had been fully paid, the wine and proof gallons therein having been by age reduced be- low the original gauge, is not a change of package reg[uiring a Whole- sale liquor dealer's stamp to be placed thereon. �In rem. Action for forfeiture of distilled spirits. Trial to a jury. The evidence showed the addition of water to the spirits to have a been about a gallon per barrel. �Channing Richards, U. S. Dist. Att'y, for plaintiff. �Bateman e Harper, for defendant. �Swing, D. J., (charging jury.) The 30 barrels of distilled spirits sought to be forfeited in this case were seized by Col- lector Kennedy, of the fourth Ohio district, as forfeited to the United States for the following causes: First. "That said distilled spirits were in certain casks and packages con- taining more than five gallons, the said casks and packages not �*lleported by Messrs. Florien Glauque and J. 0. Harper, of the Cincin- nati bar. ����
