Inm,. opinion this case comes clearly within the terms and intp.nt of this statute. The record shows jurisdiction of the person and subjectmalter. The sale was made according to law, and the sheriff's deed was made and recorded more than 10 years before this suit was commenced, and the execution debtor now comes too late to question its validity. The following authorities abundantly sustain this conclusion: Va.nclea'l;e v. Milliken, 13 Ind. 105; Brownv. Maher, 68 Ind. 14; Harla,n v. Peck, 33 Cal. 515; Ounningham v. Ashley, 45 Cal. 485; Pillow v.Roberts, 13 How: 412; Meeks v. Olpherts, 100 U. S. 564; Holmes v. Beal, 9 Cush. 223; Scottv. Hickox, 7 Ohio St. 90; Oheesebrough v. Parker, 25 Kan. 566; You7ig v.Walker,26 Kan., 242. , The argument that plaintiff is deprived of his property without having his day in court has no force,for it is the very essence of all statutes oflimitationthat the party shall lose his rights, and his property, unless he shall assert thoserightsw'ithin a certain fixed time. Nor does it relieve the case from the statute because the plaintiff asserts that the judgment is void for want of jurisdiction. The property was sold on execution, on a judgment legal on its face; and the debtor is barred from asserting or' showing by evidence. aliunde that the judgment is void or voidable after the period fixed by the statute. The authorities before cited fully discuss this question, and hold that the statute protects sales under judgments, whether void or voidable. The demurrer to plaintiff's reply must be sustained.
Flpr1da. October 11,1889.)
oltm1' COMMIeeIONER!!-MEMuEiR OF POLITIOAL PARTY-EvmBNOE. One who has always advocated the principles and voted the state and national tickets of the Democratic party, but who at one time organized a Democratic movement in his county in opposition to that part of his party then in power, nominated a ticket, and was himself elected thereon by the aid of Republican votes, acting, while in the legislature, with the Democrats, and proclaiming himself a Democrat, ie a "well-known member" of that political party, within the meaning of act Cong, ,Ju,ne 80, 1879, providing that a jury commiRsioner appointed by the judge shall well-known member of princip.al political party in the district" opposed to that to which the clerk may belong,
On Motion to Quash Venire. Jos. B. Christie, and C. M. Cooper, for defendant. The United States District Attorney, for the United States. SWAYNE, J. This is a motion by the defendant, Owen K. Paxton, to quash the venire of grand jurors, and challenge the array, for the reason set out therein. 'rhe motion is as follows:
"IN CIRCUIT COURT OF UNITED STATES. NORTHERN DISTRIOT OF FLORIDA.
, "Now comes'Owen K. Paxton. who is held to answer this term of said court on the charge of conspiring to prevent by force and intimidation one C. L.
UNITED STATES ". PAXTON.
Morrison from holding an office of trust under the United States, and cllal. lenges the array of grand jurors summoned herein, and moves to quash the "enire for said grand jurors on the ground .that said grand jurors have not been selected. drawn, and summoned in accordance with law, in that the person who acted as jury commissioner in selecting and drawing said jurors, towit, J. O. Farnell, is not, and was not when appointed, such jury commissioner,and was not, when acting as such jury commissioner in selecting anel drawing said jurors, a well-known member of the Democratic party in said district; that being the principal political party in said district. opposed to the Republican party, to which latter party the clerk of said court, Phillip Walter, belongs. Jos. B. CHRISTIE,
" Attorneys for Paxton."
To this motion the United States, by the district attorney ,joined issue, and argument was had upon affidavits presented by both parties, and upon the law as applicable thereto, in open court. The defendant cited the act of congress of June 30, 1879, in refetence to the matter, which is as follows: ' And that all jurors, grand and petit, including those summoned during the session of the court. shall be publicly drawn from a, box containing at the time of each drawing the names of not less thap three hundrl'ld persons possessing the qualifications prescl"ibed in section 800 of the ReVised, Statutes, which names shall have been placed therein by the clerk of such court, and a commissioner tobe appointed by the judge thereof, which commissioner shall be a citizen of good standing,' residing in the district in which said court is held, and a well-known member of the principal political party in the' district in which the court is held, opposing that to which the clerk may belong; the clerk and said commissioner each to place one name in bpx alternately, without reference to. party affiliation, until the whole number required shall be placed therein."
. . .*
The contention of the defendant, Paxton, is that the said J. O. Farnell, the jury commissioner, was not at the time of his appointment, nor -at the time of the performance of his duties as such commissioner, a well-known member of the principal political party in the district in which the court is held, opposing that to which the clerk may belong,_ or that he was not a well-known member of the Democratic party; thesaid clerk, Philip Walter, being shown by affidavit filed, as was well known, to be)), member of the Republican party. Numerous affidavits were filed in support of the motion, but they followed the language of the act of congress so closely as to make the testimony largely a matter of opinion, and to make the affiants swear to a conclusion of law. The facts contained by these said affidavits in support of the opinions were meager and unsatisfactory. They alleged that the said J. O. Farnell, the jury commissioner, "ran for the office of member of the house of representatives of the legislature of the state of Florida with the nomination or indorsement of the Republican party in Columbia county;" whereas it appears from the abundant testimony of the government that he nevef received the nomination of the Republican party in Columbia countYl a fact which affiants for the motion must have kilown, but was simply indorsedbythe Republicans, which indorsement was unsought by him;
ana :their 'further: testimony, thattbey did not J. O. Filrnell'did!>anythirtg in support of the state 'or national Democratie 'tick'Eltintlj.lfca:ml'aign of 1888,"d'oes not commend itself tcdhe' favoraof the court, in the light of testitric;my in the and the, ,argument had , :. . , 'rhe facts in ,this case, as shown:by tbe testim.ony l.lubmitted, are as ifollows: ThatJJ. o. Farnell, more than 60 years of age. has been for many at every, election since the late war has advoClitedtheprinciples arid voteiithe ·ticketsof the statennd national Democratic parW. But that in 1886 a portion of the Democracy of Colurp.biIL cou.n,ty in this ,state, himself among the number, organized & Democratic movement in that county in opposition to that part of his patty then in power, nominatedil. ticket'for,the legislature, an'delected it by this diVision of his own party and the assistance of Republican 'votes. ' He the legisla-tnreon this ticket, proclaiming him$elf a Detnocratall the time, and1while in'the legislature attended the Democratic caucus, abided by its decision, and acted with that party. This action: ,of his in Columbia cCI)unty .occasioned much harsh feeling and acrimonious discussion, and, among other things; his enemies sought It 'has to hurt, his staMing' and prospects' by calling him a . :beeh earth hath D(),hate like tumed," and j illusfratEis iqfelicity.. But thebrolloq., allegation mllde o( the. the motion, that lJ. 0., Farnell is a not beenand,cannot be sustained. 'CbunaeIfor·the-motion,did notat!tempt it. .But <it is charged, and I truly; that be .. thejunior I :the motioh'very tersely put it. He':wm not always fpIlow the behests of his party in local matters when he thinks them wrortg,btit he; will dbjeotj he; will' get another ticket of Democrats nominated, iaud ,have therneillicted byaportion of his party by the help of Republican .'votes,if he can. " He is pr(i)bably,very properly termed an ," Independent d)emocrat '?'In iLoeal, matters, _ while 'advocating and voting for, ,the state .and national ;Democratio:tickets. >;And this'brings.fis to: question of this case. IS'sucha 'man,w,ithsuch,a record, politically; as this, eligible to the office of jury ,-.commissionerof this court undei-the act of congress of June SO, 1879? In that actper:mit the courttoex'8l!cise its discretion, :andJSippointany;well-known member of the Democratic party, though :he. maybe dassed-as an Independent Deml?crat in local matters1 0r must 'Ithe court appoint a Democrat,-to use the language '..agaioiof the cCIlunsel for the motion? Let us tutn again to the language It says, "a well-known member of the principal political panty, 11eto.: .If: organizing a separa.te ticket, "stumping" the county, begoing tothellegislatllre does not make a man welUmown poiiticlLlly:tn'his vicinity in this state,' nothing will. Butt says :thesenfCounse] (fol'l the' motionl: he may;be a Democrat, and he, may beweil ·knoMfnjibabhe:is a member ;ofhis party; and with great ability '. arid _urge this view, and, cited.:as exam.ples
memberships. ina church, or some other pody. Butwe that political parties have no definite line bounding their periphery; they have Iloqlstihgnishing badge marking their lllembersj they are no fixed and definite number, but from season to season they increaseor diminish, all the'tide of public opinion ebbs and flows; they are generally ready and willing to accept as members all those who will enlist, even temporarily, under their respective banners. The membership of a church or lyceum, a lodge or social club, is definite, and cai at any time be certainly known; but how would it be possible to apply the same rule to a test of membership to either of the great political parties Of the, country? It is true that political parties ha:ve organizations WIth officers and ';members, but surely it cannot be maintained that thol:\e are only members whose names appear upon the record of such partyorganizations. I think it must be admitted that it has always been pnderstood that those ·whohave acted with a political party, voted its maintained its doctrines, and attended its meetings were of the party. 'rhe court is of the opinion that a well-known Democrat is a well-known member of the Democratic party, and equally eligible un7 der the act of congress. The court feels that, in coming to this conclusion on this point, it is following the suggestions of the senior counsel for the motion, so eloquently made, to carry out the spirit as well as the letter of the.' act. The act of, congress names no other requirement this subject than that he shall be "a we1l7knownmember," leavingt? the court the discretion of selecting any well-known member, no matter how much he may differ in important things from other well:known members of the same party. The court holds that it has been ,established beyond that, the said J. 0., Farnell is a well-known Democrat, and is therefore a well-known member of the principal political party in this district opposing that to which the clerk belongs. As this disposes of the only objection made in the case to the array of grand jurors, there being no other charge whatever commissioner, or the manner in which the said grand jury was selected, drawn, and sq.mmoned, the motion must be and is hereby overruled.
POINIER !1. UNITED STATES.
(DI8trI.ct Oourt, E. D. South. OaroUna. October 19, 1889.)
Under Rev; St. U. S. § 2031, aUowingeach chief supervisor of electionsB fee of 15 cents per folio for entering Bndindexing the records of his office, he is to that compensation for recording and indexing each aIlPointment of asupervlaor, and he should be allowed pay for two folios in each appointment. "
For clrawing i\:lstruc1iions to supervisors, as required by section 2026, be isentitled to 15 cents per tolio, and for ea.cli' copy furnished a supervisor, 10 cents' per folio· .. SAME." .. " , ' , , ,oaths to, supervisors 1& ,not chargeable totheUDited
The olause of seotion 2081 limiting the time of actual service'for whioh a supervisor may receive compensation to 10 days does not apply to the ohief suvervisor, who is entitled to compensation for all the time spent in attendance on the circuit court when sitting for the purpose of preserving order at the elections in the circuit, as provided by section 2011. As he is appointed chief supervisor because he is a United States commissioner, and the latter receives the fees of a clerk for services similar to those rendered by a clerk, the fee of a clerk for attendance at court -five dollars per day, and mileage at the rate of five cents per mile traveled-should be allowed the chief supervisor for his attendance. He l6hould be .allowed for the stationery used in his ofllce, the printed blanks, books, etc., anp copies of orders of oourt avpointing supervisors, etc., but this does not inClude blank applications for the appomtment of supervisors.
The fees of·15 cents per folio for recording- and indexing documents, and of 10 cents for filing and caring lor papers required to be filed, apPlY to papers furnished the cpurt containing informatiOn respecting supervisors, to information furnished to him by the supervisors themselves. .
At Law· .Plaintiff, SamuelT. Poinier, a commissioner of the circuit court of 'the United States for South Carolina, was appointed chief supervisor. He resided at. Spartanburg, S. C., lind there kept' his office. At the opening of the circuit court, according to law, on October 5, 1888, he left SpartanBi:U'g; and went to Gharleston, where the court was in session, and attended it de die in diem,' discharging his duties as chief supervisor. When the election was over, and the votes were counted, he prepared and' sUbmitted his accounts,· which were examined and approved by the district attorney and the judge. When they reached the department of the treasury in Washington, certain items were disallowed by the first c?lnptroller of the treasury. Thereupon the plaintiff brought 'suit in this court against the United States. In his petition he'sets out 'all necessary. fllcts, and produces his entire account, including the items· disallowed. The United States file an answer insisting on the disallowances. At the hearing all the items of the accounts disallowed were proved. The questions submitted were questions of law, under a construction of sections of the Revised Statutes· . ' John Wingatej"for plaintiff. Abiel Lathrop,· U. S. Atty., and H. A. De Sa'lJ,8sure, Asst. U. S. Dist. Atty. SIMOl"TON, J. The officer known as "chief supervisor of elections" is a commissioner detailed as such on special duty involving new responsibilities and duties. These, however, do not exclude services as commissioner; on the contrary, they include them, and are superinduced on his duties as commissioner. Rev. St. U. S. §§ 2025, 2031. He is required, as chief supervisor, to prepare certain blanks and other papers, and to perform some other specified duties. Section 2026. His conl;pEltlsation in the discharge of these duties is fixed by section 2031, but this compensation is apart from, and is in addition to,the fees allowed ,by law for any duty.performed,b,Y him as commissioner. Id. §§ 847, 2031;. Inre Conrad, 15 Fed. Rep.61ll; Gayer v. U. S., 33 Fed. Rep. 625. When he performs his specified duties of chief supervisor he gets a com>pensatioIi 'provided ill the act for these specified duties. If in the