JORGENSEN t1. THREE
THO't1sAND!ONEl HUNDRED AMi,
CASKS OF CEMENT. 1
(mstrict Oourt, E. D. New Yor7c. November 27,1889.)
by' perml.sslonof tb.e collector ()f the port, entered awarehouse in which goods were 'stored in the custody of the collector, and made service ot process, and ,a1l1xed a notice ofseizureto:llhe prop'erty, and thereafter keeper vie,. ited the'St;ore-house three times II day;, though wIthout entering it., Held, that the , marsbal had ell'eeted an attaehmen"lll1dwas entitled to tax asouatody fees such amount as he had actually pMd a ,keeper for that service.
In.Admiralty. On appealfrom,:taxation of marShal's 'fees. Certain casks of cement, brought into the port of New York on the bark Dictator, were taken into custody by the collector of the port for of duties, and were stOred in ll. bonded' warehouse. A libel was subsequently filed against the property by the master of the Dictator to recover freight, on which libel process was issued. No claimant appeared for t,he property. , Butkr;' Stillman &: Hubbard, for libelant. OharlesM. Stafford, U. S. Marshal; in pro. per.
J. ,This case (Jomes before the court upon an appeal from the taxation ofthe marshal's fees. ,The only item in dispute is a' charge for necessary expenses of keeping the property proceeded against, which is 3,173 casks ofoement. At the time the process was issued the cement was in: the custody of the collector of the port, stored in Bonded Store No. 23. Upon receipt of the processbpplication was made to the collector to allowthe rtlarShal to s'eize the property,whereupon the collector gave that the warehouse be opened, and that the deputy-marshal enter therein for thl'l purpose of makinK a seizure of the property. Under that permit the warehouse was opened, a.nd ,the marshal's deputy allowed to enter and make service of the process, and affix a n()tioe of seizure to the property Thereafter, according to the affidavits, the marshal'e keeper visited the store-house three times a day, every day, and the marshal now seeks to tll.X the sums paid by llim to the keeper for the services described. It is impossible, upon these facts, to deny that the marshal effected an attachment upon the property. the collector had the property in his possession, when he opened the warehouse for the pose of permitting the property to. be seized, and allowed the deputymarshalto entel';'levy his attachment upon the cement, and affix thereto notice tliat' thesa'rne had been seized by virtue of the process ofthe court, the marshal's'cuStody,of the property was complete, and it was his duty to'see that the property was forthcoming to answer the decree. An affidavit by the store-house keeper is submitted on behalf of the objectors, which sh()ws that since the time the attachment was levied the
'Reported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.
LEARY V.THE MIRANDA.
deputy-marshal had at .no time asked permission of the store-keeper to enter the store-house; that during at least 30 days of the time in question the bonded store had,been locked all day, and no one allowed to enand of the remaining time there have been: at least 40 days when the stores were only openlor a short time, and then only in the presence of the store-keeper, and that during none of those days did the marshal's deputy enter the stores. These facts do not affect the question. The store-keeper was not keeper for the marshal, nor was the collector. When the marshal's keeper found that the cement was in the store-house, it was. only necessary for him to see that it was not removed. There was no necessity, in order to maintain the marshal's custody, that the deputy enter the store-house or ,see the property again. It was the marshal's right to employ a keeper to see that the cement be not removed in case the store-house should be opened. That was accomplished by sending a keeper to visit the warehouse, for the purpose of ascertaining whether goods were being delivered from that warehouse, and in such case whether the cement was being interfered with, and the marshal is entitled to tax what he has actually paid for that service. The taxed bill is not before me, but what has been said will enable the parties to ascertain the amount properly taxable.
(matrict Ooutrt, E. D. New York. November 29,188t.)
ao---DIllBVRSEMlIN'1' J'OK TRAVELING EXPENSES OJ' WITNESSES.
Pl'oof that a party disbursed, in traveling expenses and maintenance ofb" witnesses while attending court, 8i BUm exceeding that sought to be taxed as witnesa fees,willni)tenable him to tax such fees. The statute requires prcof:thatthe amounts sought to be taxed be.amounts actually paid.the witnesses as fees.
'. In Admiralty. Appeal from .tAxation of costa·.
John Berry, for libelant· Stillman & Hubbf!'fd, for claimant.
BENEDICT, J. This come!;! before the court on an appeal from the clerk's taxlltiQn of the claimant's costs. The items in dispute relate to fees in the absence witness fees. The clerk disallowed various of proof that ,the amounts charged had been paid the witnesses. In regard the only proof is that the claimant disbursed, in travelingexpeWlesand maintenance of these witnesses while attending court, a exceeding that now charged for fees of the witnesEl. in each This pro()f is pot sufficient. The.statute proof that the amounts .witnesses for sought to be taxed be amounts actually paid.
lReported bY' Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bat'.