UNITED STATES 11. MACON COUNTY COURT.
ation for county purposes shall not apply to taxes levied to pay valid bonded indebtedness; and from this it is argued that the taxation authorized by the act Of 1879 had no reference to taxes levied to pay county bonds. The point made is without merit, for the following reason: It is well known that, when the constitution of 1875 was adoptert, many, or at least some, counties, had issued bonds under laws which permitted taxation to any amount for their payment. Other counties, like the respondent, had issued bonds under laws permitting the levy of a limited special tax for their payment. The proviso obviously had rt permitted counties of the first class to reference to such levy taxes to any amount to pay valid bonded indebtedness, and counties of the second class to levy one half of 1 per cent. in addition to whatever special tax was authorized to meet bonded indebtedness by laws enacted prior to the constitution of 1875. But it does not authorize, cOunties which have issued bonds under the Missouri & Mississippi Ra.ilroadcharter to levy taxes ad libitum. Such counties may levy a special tatt of one twentieth of 1 per cent. When that is exhausted, recourse must be had by the bondholder to the" general fund," and,the tax to create such general fund is limited both by the constitutional1l.1 statute to one half of 1 per cent. annually. The counties have no power to overstep that limit; and, as a matter of course, no court, state or federal, can compel them to do so. lt follows from the views her!·tofore exprl'ssed that the respondents' return must be adjudgellsllffieient, and the motion to quash be overruled. The return shows that Knox county has levied a special tax of one tw('ntieth of 1 percent., and in addition a tax of one half of 1 per cent. for general purposes. l\lore thau that it cunnot be cOlllpelled to assess.
eal1'el. IIUIDEKOPER 'D. MACOliT COUNTY COURT.
(Circuit Oourt. E. D. MissourI, N. D.
September 13. 1892.
App!il'ation by the United StateR. on the relation of Art hllr C. I1llidpknp"r, for a writ of mundam1£1l against the county COU1't ()[ Macon cuuuty. Denied. Phillips, Eltewart, Cunningham & Eliot, for l·elatoX'. W. H. Seat'S and R. Ii. Mitchell. for retlpolldcuts.
THAYER. District JUdg-e. A.s the questions which arise in this CIlRe nre the same which the COllrt had occasion to cunsicler and delerllline on the of June. Ul91. ill the eastern division of this di::ltl'ict, in the case of U. S. v. KnoaJ <':0:. [JIFed. Ht>p. 1.1t:lt:l.l a copy uf the opinion in tlmt case is hprl'witb appendell. tu he filed ill the suit at I'ar. It exprl'ssl's sUbstan. tially the reasons which have influenced the l'o"rt to entf'r a judgmt.'lIt.in fa. vor of anelto overrule the moti"n for a new triftl. It Illay not Uf' olltofplace to add that the 'views urged by the I'elator's attorneys in this case, as in tbe were urged before the supi'ewe Clourt
J'EDERAL REPORTER, yo1.
by Messts. T; K. Skinker and Joseph Shippen in thelJ.riefs flledby them in the case ofU. B. v. Oonnty OOU1·t; 144 U. S. 568, 12 Sup. Ct,Rep. 921. Although 110 mention is made in the opinion of the supreme court of the questions thus presented and discussed, yet itm nst be presumed that they were considel'ed and determined adversely to the relator. .,
CO. OF CITY OF NEW YORK "'. INSURANCE Co. OF STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA. Second
In an action by insurance company against another"plaintiff alleged that, through the fraud of an ·agent employed by bothcompanles, it had pald larj!;e amounts 00· marine losses which defendant ought to have paid; that the fraud was effe«ted by shifting thertsks afte,r knowledge of disaster,-i!l some cases by reinsuring with plaintiff risks originally insured by defendant, in others 'by substituting plaintiff for defendant as the original iusu·rer, and in still otlietsby concealing reinsurance effected by defendant upon risks. originally bY plaintiff, thus throwing the whole burden of the loss upon plaintiff. that in proving the frlluds it was competent to show that during the same p<3riod the agent was committing II series of similar frauds upljn other companies, for which, he was agent, for the benefit of defendant; and that an the entriesmadain his books by his clerks pursuant to his instructions, in effecting the frauds, as :well as· the instructions themselves, both general and special, admissible liS part of the res gcstw.
It was proper to mllrk liS exhibits the pages containing the fals\3 entries, and the fact that such pages, as tbljly stood and .as they went ,to the jury, contained· other entries in no wise concerned with the case, was i.mmaterial when the plaintiff only proved and read the fraudUlent entries, and the objections taken were to these only.
SAME-EVIDENCE OF PERJURED WITNESS-CORROBORATION.
It was immaterial whether certain entries, testified to by a witness whose former perjury was conceded. did or did not· corroborate his testimony, such evidence being offered and received, not as independent eVidence, but as part of the testimony of the witness himself,-as memoranda made b.V him at the time, and sworn to be cprrect, of dates,l;lamas, figures, and values, which no witness could be ex. . pected to carry in mind. Certain evidence was introduced whicb. would tend to show knowledge by defendant of the frauds practiced in its favor, if supplemented by other proof. But plaintiff failed to so supplement it. The court 'charged that no knowledge was proved. Held that, in the absence of a motion to strike out, this charge was all that was required.',' , The dates when was effected nowhere appeared on the books, and could only be fixed by the. position of the reinsurance entries, with relation to other entries which were dated.' Held, that it was competent, for this purpose, for a witness to testify from entries made by himself, altl!Ough such entries disclosed otber fraudulent reinsurances,
SAME-EvIDENOE OF DATlllB.
SAME-COURS.E OF BUSINESS.
Evidence showing the line of insuranCe and reinsurance carried by defendant company during the yell'1'was admissible as disclosing a general course of business, whereby defendant was found to he reinsured when was a loss to be paid, and not to be reinsured, however. large its risk, when none; for from this fact, in connection witjl others, it might fairly be inferred that the results were secured, not by sound judgment or good chance,but by fraudulent practices.
That defendant received the fruits of the agent's frsuds sufficiently appeared from the fact tnat in ea<;h case of loss upon a risk insured .by defendant, and osten&ibly reinsured in part by pillintiff. t.be adjusted the loss, paid it out of runds of defendant in his hands, charged the whole amount to defendant, drew a draft on