'rUE NELI.lE :PECK.
THE NELLIE PEOK.1 TWHNER V. THE NELLIE PEOK.
(lJiatrict Court, E. D. Missouri. November 10, 1885.)
1. ADMIRALTY-MARSHAL'S FEES-KEEPING BOATS-REV. ST. § 829.
Where it becomes necessary, in order to preve,nt loss, for a marshal to expend, over $2.50 per day in keeping a boat, libeled in admiralty, he should be allowed, for necessary extra expenses, such an amount as the work done is worth, and no more.
SAME-WORK NECESSITATED BY NEGLIGENCE.
Where a marshal has work done in a defective manner, and additional labor becomes necessary in consequence, no compensation for the latter should be allowed.
In Admiralty. Libel for wages. Inf'6 marshal's account. Section 829 of the Revised Statutes of the United States provides that a marshal shall be allowed "for the necessary expenses of keepingboats, vessels, or other property attached or libeled in admiralty, not exceeding two dollars and fifty cents a day." O'Neill Ryan, for libelant. TREAT, J. The United States Statutes prescribe that for necessary expenses for keeping boats, etc., in admiralty there should be allowed to the marshal any amount not exceeding $2.50 per day. If circumstances occur which demand for the safety of the property a larger expenditure, the court, on Leing satisfied, may allow the same.. It seems, from the account rendered, that two watchmen were em· played, each at the rate of $2 per day, making, instead of $2.50 per day, $4. It appears also that, while watchmen were on duty, an extra spar was bought, which may have heen necessary. The marshal charges $1 in favor of John Mish, in going to the tug-office, and assisting in fastening said steam-hoat, Nellie Peck, to the shore. The court cannot see the need for such extra work, if the tug had done its work properly. A tug-boat was used to tow the defendant boat to Carroll street, for which a charge of $10 is made, and in addition thereto $5 for making fast and sparring out. If such towage and labor were properly incurred and done, what becomes of the next two items three days thereafter, viz., September 7th, pulling the Nellie Peck off the bank, $5, and on September 8th, landing her in a storm, $5? If the tug towed, fastened, and sparred out the boat properly, she would not have heen grounded, nor parted her moorings. The last two items must he rejected. There is nothing shown to the court indicating that the amount of $2.50 should be exceeded, except as to a few incidentals and the towage acconnt. Therefore the court strikes out the item of $1 for John Mish; strikes out the last two items in the account of the Westem Coal & Tow Company, each
lReported by Benj. F. Rex, Esq., of the St. Louis bar.
for $5, and the ,watchmen are reduced, respectively, to $1.50 per day, having 25 cents each per day in excess of the statutory requirements. the account will stand as presented, less the following items,
John Mish, Western Coal & Tow Co" John Bertram, (watchman,) Walter Atkinson, (watchman.) J. C. Klibben,(watchman,)
$ 1 10 14 17 30
00 00 00 00 50
It is important that the expenses of judicial administration be kept rigidly within the requirements of the law; and that the court in no case should permit, especially under the head of extra allowances, any charge which is not shown to be reasonably necessary. The case before the court furnishes an apt illustration. The amount of the sale was $675, and the marshal's bill is $323.81, the clerk's and other costs amount'to what the statute prescribes, to be hereafter determined. It must be understood that judicial expenses shall not be permitted to exceed whitt the law allows, otherwise, instead of distributing assets for the benefit of the parties litigant, the property will be devoured in unnecessary expenses.
UNITED STATES V. BRIGHTON RANCH CO.
UNITED STATES v. BRIGHTON RANOH CO. and another.
«(JiJrcuit Court, D. Nebraska. November 16, 1885.)
PtmLIC LANDS-FENCING FOR CATTLE RANCH-INJUNCTION.
The United 8tates have a right to an injunction in a court of equity to prevent the enclosing of public lands, and where the legal title remains in the government in cases of pre-emptors, it can protect those lands in the Slj.me manner; except where the pre-emptor has given express license to build a fence on his land. .
In Equity. This is a suit on behalf of the United States to obtain a mandatory injunction against the Brighton Ranch Company to compel it to remove a barbed-wire fence, 57 miles long, inclosing 52,000 acres of the public lands of the United States. The testimony disclosed that this fence stood partly on deeded lands, school lands, and lands entered under the homestead, pre-emption, and timber-culture laws of the United States. The testimony,further disclosed that the fence was erected on these entered lands with the permission of the settlers. Inside the fence were a large number of acres of vacant public lands. G. M. Lambertson, for complainant. J. M. Woolworth, for respondents. MILLER, Justice. I am of opinion that the United States is entitled to its injunction mandatory as to 80 much of the fence cQmplained of as exists, and prohibitory as to building any future fences, so far as either of them comes within the following principles: (1) .There exists no right in the defendants to build any fence on the lands of the United States. (2) All lands are for this purpose lands of the United States so long as the legal title remains in the United States. (3) It is the right of the United States and its duty to protect all such lands from this misuse in cases where there have been any kind of entries, 'Yhether of pre-emption, homestead, or private entry, though the purchase money be paid, so long as the legal title remains in the United States; except where these latter parties build their own fences, or give express license to others to do it. Inthese cases it holds the title in trnst, and can maintain this bill to remove the fence or prevent its erection. A decree should be entered based on these principles. v.25F.no.8-30