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'.
fees. No such payment is here proved. If the proof showed an agreement with the respective witnesses, ulade at the tim1'l, or previous to the time,. of disbursing the amounts alluded by the claimant, to the effect that their witness fees should be applied to reimburse those expenses, it might b, that the claimant could in' that case tax the witness fees. Wooster v. Handy, 23 Blatchf. 133, 23 Fed. Rep. 49. ,No agreement with the respective witnesses in regard to their fees has been proved; and, for all that appears, the witnesses might now come forward in their own behalf,- and claim their fees, notwithstanding the fact that their expenses of traveling and maintenance have been paid. The clerk's taxation is affirmed.
THE GOOD HOPE. I HILLARD
V.THE GOOD HoPE.
(DI8trict.Oourt, E. D. New York.
A payment of money into court, on plea of tender, at the flling of the answer, will not affect the question of costs, unless it is specified how mucb is tendered as payment of the claim, and bow muoh for costs.
In Admiralty. Goodrich, Deady & Goodrich, -for libelants. Carpenter &; M08her, for claimants. BENEDICT, J. In this case, which is brought by the owners of the tug George G. Meade to recover salvage compensation for services rendered the barge Good Hope, in towing that vessel away from the fire which broke out at the oil docks upon the steamer Hafis, then lying on the upper side of the pier at the foot of North Eleventh street, Brooklyn, in October, 1888. The proofs show a salvage service, but not of a high character. Fifty dollars will, I think, be a proper compensation for a service of the characterin question. The decree will therefore be for the sum of $50, and it mustcarry costs; for the payment into court, at the filing of the answer, of $$0, upon a plea of tender after suit brought, is without effect upon the question of costs, because of uncertainty. The atatement of the answer is that the value of the services, with the libelant's accrued, taxable costs, does not exceed the sum of $80, which sum the claimants deposited in court. But how much was tendered for services, or how much for costs, nowhere appears. For alHhat appears, $10 may have been tendered for services and $70 for costs. In order to make the payment into court available, the Sum paid in for services should have been stated. Let a decree be entered for the sum of 850, and the costs of the cause, to be taxed.
'Reported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.