BROYLES tI. BUCK.
it had become absolute. In Langdeau v. Hanes, 21 Wall. 530, the court uses the following language: "A legislative confirmation of a claim to land is a recognition of the validity of such claim, and operates as effectively as a grant or qUitclaim from the government. * * * If'the claim be to land with defined boundaries, or capable of identification, the legislative confirmation perfects the title to the partic,alar tract, and a subsequent patent is only documentary evidence of title." . The supreme court of Kansas has decided that a conveyance by the heir of a Pottawatomie Indian allottee, under a treaty similar to the Kickapoo treaty, and an act of congress for the settlement of their estates, August, 1868, was valid, although made before the patent was issued. And this decision war;; made on the act of 1868, whlch did not provide in terms, as does the act of 1886. that a plOl.tent should issue on the death of the allottee. Oliver v. Forbes, 17 Kan.124. lean see nothing in the language or purpose of the act of 1886 to warrant the construction clailued for it by counsel for defendants, that the heir takes the land with the same restrictions and limitations on the right of disposing of it as' existed against the allottee in his life-time. The 'patent is absolute and uncondHional,-a The whole title of the goverment paSses to the allottee, and heirs for all purpose's, and without restriction. Counsel forplaintifls bas called my attentiun to SeVeral other cases, both in tbe federal and state courts, sustaining the views berein expressed, but it is not necessary to cite further authority. 1'be plaintiffsure entitled to their decree.
BROYLES e( al. 'II. BUCK,
. (OirlJ'Uit Court, N. D. Georgia.
December 29, 1888.)
COSTS-IN FEDERAL COURT-ATTORNEY'S FEE FOR DEPOSITIONS.
Under section 824. Rev. St. U. S., the prevailinl:\" party is entitled to oollect for his attorney a fee of $2.50 for the deposition of each "taken and admitted in evidence, "to be taxed as costs, especially where the witnesses arc examined and answer separately. ' Such fees are allowed to the party as compeusation for his attorney's services in and about the depositions, and are to be taxed in addition to'tb.e fees of commissioners to take the testimony. . .
The attorney's costs, like those of the clerk and marshal, are to be collocted in the name of the prevailing party. . ";
Rule on Clerk to Tax Costs. Malcolm Johnston, for movants. Bacon & Rutherford and P. L. Mynatt, for railway company.
'Reported by Will Haight, Esq., of the Atlanta bar.
t4e,derk in the case of the East The question is whether, unqer section $24, Rev. St. U. S., the clerk, in mixing costs ,for attorney's fees, in favor of the prevailing party to a suit shop.ldtax $2.50 for the deposition taken and admitted in evidence of each witness, where the testimony of more than one witness is returned to court in one inclosure. The attorneys for Watters, the prevailing party, say that the testimony of each witness is "a deposition" in the meaning of the statute,especiaUy where, as in this case, the testimony of each witness ia takensepa.rately. This view seems to be correct. It is difficult to see how any Qther interpretation can be given the language, "for .each pep0!:1ition taken," etc. lt is suggestl'ld by cQunsel for the railway company that the expense to it of. havingth'e commissions:e.xecuted, and taking the testimony, should be deducted from the SUm to he taxed as attorney's fees for depositions. As I ll,oderstand this, statute; the fee of $2.50 "for each depositiqn ta.kl'ln and ,admitted in evidence in a cause" goes to the prevailing party for ,his attorney, and the eXipense of commissioners to' take the tes,timonyhlls.nQ connection with it. ' , ,. This brought..by Watters' '8.ttorneys, but, it being conceded 9n the hearingt,bat properly it should have been hrought in the name of Watters, the defendant-in the'casei;itwas allowed to proceed informally, ,nevertheless, to. determine the question made. It is ordered, therefore, the.clerk..ta:J;:in thebill'of.costs·in this case ;$2.·50 for the depositions of each witness taken and admitted in evidence., j ,
Tennessee,' Virginia & Georgia Railroad Oompanyv. Walters.
J. This is a. rule
UNITED STATES" t1. BADINELLI
, . ' f
. L EJ.oBOTIONIl-Un·
, ,.VOTB·.. ·
AGAINST ELEOTION LAw8-COUNTmG THE ,; .
Revised Sta,tutes. § 5515. punishes officers of,election for BOIDe violation only of their duty as prescribed by; law, and Dot for a violation of any duty imposed by a mere moral sense of fairness and justice in , . thllvQtes.),f, theref\>re,tqey undertaket\> ,::ount the ballots in a "man,ner uQt,a·lthor.lzed. by .law, no duty as to that c\>unting is imposed for a violation of which they may be under the federal statute. The offense punishable, in such a case, is the counting of the votes in the unla'lVfnl . po how fairly . " .
SAME-PLACE OF COUNTING-ExCLUSION OF ELlllCTOR,S.·
The Tennessee Code requires a free, open. and public counting of the vote at the place where the vote is polled, and nowhere else. It does not provide for a count in a private room, to which thel!lallot-box has been takerl: protected by policemen from the intrusion .af all not,admitted by the election officers.. It is, therefore vi()lp.tipn qf a dntypunisbabl.e"py the federal statute to exclude' an elector from sucli ari unlawful c6untlhg, whether he be entitled to be present at a public and lawful counting at the polling place or not; but the indictment shq!}ld have charR'ed the of violating their