There was no; statute infOrde :on the 4th day February, 1870, or the ll§tday Of 'May of same year, other than that in which an ap.: propriationwasinade to 'pay for the use of btiildingsoccupied as postoffi<les, ,which authorized the postmaster 'general to make a contract of lease. The tenancy commenced on the 1st day of May, 1870,R1'ld can:' tinned frorn year to year until the 1st day of May, 1886, when the government abandoned possession and refused to pay rent thereafter. If the premises had been held longer, but less than a yeat, the government might have been liable for another full year's rent as tenant by the year. l>emurrersustained.
(Oircuit Court, S. D. New York;: January 0,1891.)
In the second circuit, the rule is settled in favor of taxing the fees for taking depositions before the examiiler, pursuant to equity rule 67 of tbe supreme court of the United States. In the secolid circuit, tbe charge for printing records and briefs iu compliance with the circuit court rules will be taxed. ' Wbere, in taking depositions, an for so long ,a time as to warrant witnesses in returning home between appearances Is had by the fault of the uusuccessful party, the additional traveling eJtpenses will be taxed to:him.
BAKE-PRINTING RECORDS AND BRIEF'S.
Briaen &: Knauth, for complainant. Walter D. EdmondJJ, for defendants.
For opinion on the merits, see 37 Fed. Rep. 783, and ante, 283.
LACOMBE, Circuit Judge. This is an appealby the complainant from the taxation of defendants' costs. 1. His first exception is to the item of "deposition fees, $60." This includes the taking of the testimony of 24 different witnesses before the examiner, pursuant to rule 67 of the equity rules of the supreme court. The depositions of these witnesses were admitted or used in evidence on the trial. The complainant cites the cases of StraU88 v. Meyer, 22 Fed. Rep. 467, aud of Tuck v. OldJJ, 29 Fed. Rep. 883, in support of his contention. In this circuit, however, the qUE'Stion has been settled the other way, and no sufficient ground for reconsidering the views expresslld in the earlieJ; decisiona The clerk's taxation in this particular is affirmed. SttimpaO'n v. Broolcs, 3 Blatchf.456; Wooater v.lJOIndy, 23F!3d. Rep. 49; SpiUv. Manufacturing <::h., 28 FeIJ. Rep. 870; Factmyv. Oorni.ng, 7 Blatchf. 17. See also the opinion of Judge J .enON .in ingham v. Pierce, 37 Fed. Rep. 647.
2. Complainant next to the charge for printing the record and brief, in compliance with the rul«:Js of this court. Whatever may be th!'l decisions in other circuits, it is settled in this circuit that this is a proper item of disbursements. Cir. Ct. Rule May 18, 1878; Dennis v. Eddy, 12 Blatchf. 195. . 3. The defendants also have appealed from the clerk's refusal to allow more than one traveling fee to the same witness, 'when the taking of his testimony required his attendance on several different occasions, and intervals between the witness' successive appearances were so long as to warrant his return to his home, and therefore require traveling expenses to secure his attendance on the adjourned day. In only one of these cases, however, does it appear from the record that such adjournment was caused by the sole fault of the complainant. For that attendance, the additional traveling fees may be allowed. In all the other cases the clerk's taxation is affirmed.
V. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Court, W.D. LoutBiana. January 1I,189L)
Where, In an II-ction by the United States to recover the value of logs cutonpubUo land, the plalntl1f's evidence shows that the defendant purchased from the trespasser and converted to his own ulle a large number of logs; among which were some of those cut from the public land, the burden is on the defendant to show all the logs iO bought by him were not so cut. Where the logs so cut were mixed in the river with a large quantity of other logs, so that the identical logs could not be conveniently the United States thereby acqUired a proportionate interest in the entire mass of logs, under Rev. Civil Code La. art. 528, which provides that, "when a thing has been formed by iI. mixture of materials belonging to different proprietors, . * if the materillo1s cannot be separated without inconvenience, their owners acquire bl common the pro rata of the thing...
TIMBER CUT ON PUBLIC L.um-BURDEN 01'
.. OoNFU810N ot!' GOODS.
At Law. Error to district court. J. L. BradfrYrd, for plaintiffs in error. M. El8t.ner, U. 8. Atty., for defendant in error.
PARDEE, J. The United States brought suit in the district court for this district against the defendant Mrs. Norris, as executrix of Mrs. Mafor the sum of$1,507, with legal interest from judicial de:. mand for the manufactured value of certain .logs unlawfully and tor:tiously cut and removed during the summer and fall of 1884 by one George Airhart, in Calcasieu parish, a knowing and willful trespasser upon public lands of the United8tates,wbich said logs cut and reo. JDoved "era by said Airhart Bold and delivered to the f3llid Mrs. Jones, ahd by her conyerted to her own T4e petitioll charged .· that,· MJ'$.