In Wood v. the United States (1842) 41 U.S. 342, a case involving the forfeiture of goods for customs fraud, counsel of the claimant objected to the admissibility in evidence of the invoices of the other goods imported by the claimants before and after the importation of the goods in question. Justice Story in sustaining the admissibility of that proof said, (at page 358): "The question was one of fraudulent intent or not; and upon questions of that sort, where the intent of the party is matter in issue, it has always been deemed allowable, as well in criminal as in civil cases, to introduce evidence of other acts and doings of the party of a kindred character, in order to illustrate or establish his intent, or motive in the particular act, directly in judgment. Indeed, in no other way would it be practicable, in many cases, to establish such intent or motive, for the single act taken by itself may not be decisive either way; but when taken in connection with others of the like character and nature, the intent and motive may be demonstrated almost with a conclusive certainty". In that case, the United States filed an information of forfeiture alleging that twenty-two pieces of cloth were not invoiced according to their actual cost at the port of exportation, with design to evade the duties thereon. One of the questions before the Supreme Courtwas whether there was error in the admission of the evidence of fraud deducible from the other invoices offered in the case. Mr. Justice Story said: "Indeed, it is admitted by the counsel for the plaintiff in error, in the case before us, that it is a general principle of law, that whenever a fraudulent intention is to be established, collateral facts tending to show such intention are admissible proof. But the objections taken are, secondly, that the proof related to importations after, as well as before, the particular importation in question. We do not think either of these objections maintainable. The other objection has as little foundation; for fraud in the first importation may be as fairly deducible from other subsequent fraudulent importations by the same party, as fraud would be, in the last importation, from prior fraudulent importations. In each case, the quo animo is in question, and the presumption of fraudulent intention may equally arise and equally prevail."