were not sureties; nor, indeed, was any bond required. For his honesty in that regard the United States were their own insurers. As to the details of the embezzlement, which is the cause of this action, evidence) natur!J.lly enough,is not very specific. It may fairly be inferred, however, that Morgan's method of proceeding was as follows: He received from time to time bank-bills) trel¥lury notes, or coin in payment of passport fees, or for the sale of Statutes. These bills, notes, and coin he appropriated to his own usej -and when the month came to an end he was a defaulter to the governmf;lnt to the amoup.t of the moneys so received. Thereupon he drew ILdraft against his account as disbursing clerkdor an amount equal to his defalcationsdriring the month, and passed it over to the treasurer or assistant treasurer, with the request that it be covered into the treasury as the amount received from passports during the Thereupon the amount of these drafts was charged to the disbursement account, and credited to the passport-fee account. The cases of U. S. v. Janoory,17 Cranch) 572j U. S. v. Eckford, 1 How. 250, andJone,s v. U. 8.)7 How. 681, referred to in the opinion of the learned court below, seem to be controlling of this case. If there were .another set of bondsmen) who guarantied Morgan's faithful service in the receipt and disposition of passport fees and moneys for the sale of Statutes) the loss which the United States have sustained would be, under .these decisions). recoverable. from them) and not from the defendants. The situation is certainly not changed by the circumstance that the government stands as its own security for Morgan)s acts in regard to the .!ll0neys he embezzled. The judgment is affirmed <1n the opinion of the district judge.
UNITED STATES V. SMITH
(Oircuit Oourt, B. D. Mi88ouri. June 4, lASS.) 1.
INDIANS -INDJA}i AGENTS - AOTION ON BOND - EVIDENCE - TRANSCRIPT 011' TREASURY DEPARTMENT-PM:i'ERTY RECEIVED-REV. ST. U. S. § 886.
In an action on the bond <if a special Indian agent, a treasury traJiscript containing a charge "for go"ernment property received at the W. agency, and not properly accounted for." but not showing of what the property consisted,' nor how the value was ascertained. is insufficient to 'warrant a judg· ment for the value of such property, and is not aided by a paper attached thereto describing the property by items, apparently compiled from the original retnnssnd other document\! on file; such paper no.t being admissible under Rev. St. U. S. 886. providing for the admission in evidence of copies .of books and'papers In the treasury department.
fl... SAME-RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMEj!iTS.
Under Rev. 8t. U. 8. !:i 886, providing for the admission in evidence of coppapers on file in the treasury department, a treasurv tranies of books script, certified as therein' provided, is competent, in au action on the bond of a special Indian agent, to show what public moneys defendant received, and what disbursements made by him were approved.
ST,.\TES 'D.' SMITH.
SAME-AGENCY INSPECTOR-TRAVELING EXPENSEB-R,EV. ST. OF MARCH 8, 1875. " "", ,
Under Rev. St. U. S. § 2079, Imowing the actual expenses of persons who are requireq, under the title relating to Indians, to travel from one place to another, and the act of congress of March 3, 1875, such persons may be allowed their traveling expenses, including board while actually in transit, but not for board while engaged in inspecting a station
Action on the official bond of A. R. Smith as special Indian agent. Sections 886 and 2077, Rev. St. U. S., referred to in the opinion, are as follows: Sec. 886... When suit is brought, in any case of delinquency of a revenue officer., or other person accountable for public money, a transcript from the books and proceedings of the treasury department, certified by the register, and authenticated under the seal of the department, or, when the suit involves the accounts of the war or navy departments, certified by the auditors respectively charged with the examination of those accounts, and authenticated under the seal of the treasury department, shall be admitted as eyidence. and the court trying the eause shall be authorized to grant jUdgment, and award execntion accordingly. And all copies of bonds, contracts, or other papers relating to or connected with the settlement of any account between the United States and an individual. when certified by the regisle,', or by such auditor, as the caSe may be, to be true copies of the originals on file. and authenticated under the seal of the department. may be annexed to such transcripts, and shall have equal validity, and be entitled to the same degree of credit, which would be due to the ori'l'ioal papers if produced and anthenticated in COllrt." Sec. 2077. "Where persons are rt'quirt'd, in the performance of their duties, ullder this title. [' Indians,'] to travel from one place to another, tht'ir actual expenses, or a reasonable sum in lieu thereof, may be allowed them, except that no allowance shall be made to any person for travel' or expenses in coming to the seat of government to settle his accounts, unless thereto reqUired by the secretary of the interiol'."
Thomas P. Bashaw, U. S. Dist. Atty., for the United States. a. II. Krum and a. M. Napton, for defEmdants.
TH4YER, J. This is an action on a bQnd given by the defendants to secure the faithful performance by A. R. Smith of his duties as special In.dian agent under an appointment made in October, 1881. The breaches assigned are that Smith, failed to account for $497.15 of public moneys illtrusted to him for disbursement, and that he failed to account for public property that came into his possession of the value of $1,777.03. The testimony on the part of the government is contained in a transcript certified by the register and secretary of the treasury pursuant to section 886 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. Among the various papers forming the transcript is a statement purporting to be a copy of Smith's "consolidated account" as borne on the books of the treasury department. On the debit side of the account, he is charged with the sum of $1,777.03 "for government property received at the Western Shoshone agency, and not properly accounted for." The transcript of the "consolidated account" does not show of what the property consisted, nor the manner in which the value of ,same 'was ascertained. Attached, to the transcript is another paper,j however J '
which 'professes to describe the ptoperty item by item, and also states the value of the various articles, but it does not show in what way the values given were ascertained. Respecting this latter paper, it should also ,be said that it does not pl"ofess to be a transcript from any book kept, or a copy of any document on file, in the treasury department. It was probably compiled from original returns made by Smith of public property in his possession, which are now on file in the department, and profysses to show what portion ofsuch pr<>perty has not been accounted for by proper vouchers. Neither the original property returns as made by Smith, and accompanying vouchers, or copies of the same, are attached to the treasury transcript, or have been offered in evidence. On this state of facts, it must be held that the proof is insufficient to warrant' It against the principal in the bond,' and his sureties, for the any pU1:>lic property intrusted tohil3 care. It maybe, conceded thftt;, Of section 886, a transcript. from the books of the treas. uj:'ydepartment,show'ing the ,officer's receipts and disbursements of pub., lie money, would be sufficient to ,warrant a judgment against him for anybaHmce shown by such account to be due the government. . U. S. v. Buford,' 29; Cox v. 202. But a transcript'froin a Qp9k which merely shows a charge in gross against an officer for the ,!lllue of public property, without describing the proper,ty, orihe method of valuation, or the manner in which it came to his hands, or the disposition made of the same, is of no value even under section 886. U. S. v. Jonea, 8 Pet. 375. If the treasury transcript contained copies of" the agent's properly returns,and copies of the vouchers accompanying l$e same, (all of which are made evidence, with like eflect as the orig.' loals, by virtue of section 886,) it would be possible to verify the charge made against him in the consolidated account for property not properly accounted lor; but as the government has failed to produce such6riginal returns and vouchers, or receipts signed by the agent f()r property intrusted to him, or copies of any such papers duly certified by the register and'secretary of the treasury, it must be held that there is no legitimate proof of a failure on the part of the agent to account for property' in his custoay. The case, in this respect, is not aided by the production of an itemized list of the property, compiled from original receipts, returns, or other documents on file in the department, as copies of such papers are not produced, and as there is no lawmaking such a compilation admissible against the defendants in the absence 61' the original docI.1ments,orcopies thereof duly authenticated. U. S. v. Patterson, Gilp. 4!Tl V.'S. v.JiYM8, 8tlJpra. . ,'iThe·defendant'.s money transactions with the government stand on a different footing. The transcript is competent,'under section 886, to show what public moneys the defendant received, and what disbursements made by him have been approved. Whatever balance appears to' oeinhishands'. after deducting such disbursements ashlive becnal-. lowed, he is ohargeable with, unless he can he is legally entitled to other credits than have been allowed., .The 'various SUms disal-, lowed ,am:Olint :to' $497 .15'i leaving the defeildant apparantly
UNlTEDBTATEB: tI. ZEB C!.bYA.
the government in that StUXL' . Most ofthedishursementl!l claimed to have been made, which bavebeen' disallowed, were for board while the' agencies. The treaa-: agent was examining the affairs of different ury department appears to have allowed him all of ,his traveling expenses, including board while actually in transit from one staLion to another, but to have disallowed certain credits claimed for alleged ments on account of board after his arrival at his destination. On the other hand, the defendant contends with much plausibility that ashe was a special agent, having no fixed place of duty, and was most of the time employed in inspecting various stations, that· he is entitled to reimbursement for living expenses while inspecting stations as well as while traveling. Theview taken by the accounting officers of the treasury department with respeettothis point seems to be fortified'by the'pmvisions of a statute regulating the subject, and laccordingly coneudn thei! view. Vide section 2077, Rev. SkU. S., and act March 3,1875, (l&St. at Large, 452.) While concurring in the general:liew of the law in: PU!., suance ofwhich the account has beenstated, I am,of the opinion that,: according to the testimony of the defendant· Smith, he is entitled to credit for the following items of expense in ,his aCcount for the fou,rth quarter of 1881, to-wit, $1.60 and $19.25, and to the in his account for the first quarter of 1883, $24.80, $9, and $2. Deductingthese items; aggregating $55.85, the net balance due 'the United States is $441.30, for which judgment will be entered.
UNITED STATES V. ZES OWYA.
(Diltrict Oourt, S. D. Alabama. July 11. 1888.)
ABDUCTION-FoR THE PURPOSE OF PROSTITUTION OR CONCUBINAGE.
Where an Indian prisoner escapes from the reservation, taking with 'him an Indian girl of 11 years, arid forcibly has sexual intercourse with her, heis not guilty of abduction under Code Ala. 1886, § 3744, providing for punish, ment for takin!l,' a girl uuder 14 years from the person having legal charge of her, for purposes of prostitution, marriage, or concubinage. ·...
CRIMINAL LAW-'-REASONABLE DOUBT.
A reasonablll d()ubt is oue which, after an. entire consideration of the evi" dence, the mind in such condition that there is no conviction to a moral certairitv of defendant's guilt.
At Law. Indictment for abduction. Zes Cloya, one of the Apache Indians captured with Geronimo, WaB j with many others, put upon the United States military reservation neal!' Mount Vernon arsenal in Mobile county, Ala.; under guard of the garri. son. He escaped, carrying with him an Indian girl of about 11 years of age. He was recaptured, on state territory, and the military turned him over' to the civil authorities for trial. In .accordal1cewith·the Re vised Statutes; (section 5391,).he was tried for the offense of abduction as defined hi Oode Ala. 1886, §' 3744, as fbllmvs: ' " ,