UNITED STATUS V. TATES. 661 �June to test it, they had a right to reject it. And if th© plaintiffs were notified by them that they did so reject it, the plaintiffs cannot recover. But if they did not notify the plain- tiffs until after the first of June that they would reject it, they would be liable to them for the value of the apparatus. If the apparatus, by reason of the defects, was unfitted for the purposes designed for such apparatus, and the defendants, before the first of June, notified the plaintiffs that they would not acoept it and for them to take it down and remove it, and plaintiffs refused to do so, the fact that it remained in the posi- tion in which plaintiffs had set it up, and was for a short time used by them whilst waiting for them to take it down and remove it, would not make the defendants liable for the appa- ratus. If the contract was as' the plaintiffs claim, and the apparatus was in ail respects such as the plaintiffs bound themselves to furnish, and the defendants refused to keep and shipped it to the plaintiffs, and they received it without objec- tion and still retain it, they would not be entitled to recover the contract price, but only the difference between the con tract price and the value of the apparatus in the condition in which they received it. Verdict for defendants. ���United States ». Tatbs. �(Disiria Court, E. D. New York. May 2, 1881.) �1. Inb-amotts Ceimb— Pipth Amendmbnt. �The crime of passing counterfeit trade dollars is not an Infamoiu crime witbin the meaning of the flf tb amendment of the constitution. a. Bamb — Inpokmation. �A prosecution for such oSence, upon information flled by the die- trict attorney, does not, therefore, violate the constitution of the Uni- ted States.— f Ed. �Information. Motion in Arrest of Judgmeut. A. W. Tenney, for the United States. Noah Tebbetts, for defendant. ��� �
