Volume 9 — Court of Claims Reports

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The facts found by the court below sufficiently appear in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

The Reporter'1 s statement of the case: In addition 'to tbe facts, which are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court, the court below found, at the request of the claimant, the following specific… Held: it became subject thereby to the law-merchant, with all of its legal incidents. (15 Peters’s Rep., p. 377; 2 How.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The facts found by the court below sufficiently appear in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

The Reporters’ statement of tbe case: Tbe following are tbe facts found by tbe court below: On tbe lOtb day of August, 1863, a commission was executed in due form of law by bis excellency, David Tod, then governor of tbe State of Obio, nominating and appointing tbe claimant a second lieutenant in tbe Second Eegiment of Obio Volunteers, (infantry,) and was received and accepted by tbe claimant on tbe 15tb day of August, 1863, be then being tbe first sergeant of Company D, in…

The llefortcnf statement of the ease : The facts found in the court below are fully set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

The Reporter’s statement of the case: The facts upon which this application was founded fully appear • in the opinion of the Supreme Court. The judgment of the court in this cause has the form and all the characteristics of a judgment. The reference hy the act of Congress was to- the Court of Claims, and not to the judges thereof.

The Reporters? statement of the case: In the court below, the question chiefly considered was whether, when an Executive Department transmits to the Court of Claims, for adj udication, a claim involving a controverted question of law, to be determined upon an agreed statement of facts, under the Act 2oth June, 1868, (15 Stat. L., p. 75, § 7,) that statement is conclusive upon the court.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are tlie material facts found by the court below: I. On the 28th July, 1864, the defendants, through their assistant quartermaster, entered into the written contract with claimant which is described in, and annexed to, the petition.

The Reporters' statement of the case: The allegations of the petition, which are the subject of the demurrer, are fully set forth iu the opinion of the court.

The Reporter’s statement of tlie case: The facts found by the court below are sufficiently set forth iu the opinion of the Supreme Court. The QuartermasteCDepartment provides “ all necessary quarters and transportation for all Army supplies, Army clothing, camp and garrison equipage, cavalry and artillery horses, fuel, forage, straw, and stationery.” (2 Stat. L., p. 69G; 5 Stat.

The Reporters statement of the case: The following are the facts found by the court below: I. On the 21st March, 1865, defendants, by their quartermaster, Col. J. A. Potter, entered into a contract with the claimant, annexed to and forming part of the petition. II.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The facts found by the court below are fully set forth in the-opinion of the Supreme Court. The subject-matter of this contract is the transportation of military stores and supplies between different military posts $, and in such a contract it is submitted there can be no covenant implied to employ a contractor rather' than anybody else. Whether such a covenant is implied in a contract depends, in part, upon the subject-matter of it.

The Reporters’ statement of the ease: Tlie following are the findings of the Court of Claims: 1. In October, 1863, the officers of the Quartermaster Department, refusing to deal with one A. M. White, the claimant, in his own name, offered to furnish the grain mentioned in the petition, and his proposal was accepted.

The Reporters' statement of tbe case: More than seven hundred cases for the additional compensation allowed by the twenty-per-cent, resolution having been submitted in the court below, and the opinion of the court below being adverse to the greater part of them, but the court having doubts whether the former decision of the Supreme. Court in somewhat similar eases (7 C. Cls.

<p> On Motion. </p> <p> On the trial, the Government submits the case on a printed argument, which refers to a letter from the Postmaster-General to the claimant, printed in the record, hut which in fact is not properly in evidence. The receipt of this letter and the claimant's neglect to answer it constitute an estoppel. So the Government insists, and so the court decides. Subsequently the elaimantmovesfor anew trial, on the ground that the letter was not properly in evidence, nor its receipt shoivn. At the trial he was silent upon these points. </p> <p>Where an estoppel was implied from the supposed receipt of a letter, aot properly in evidence, the court will grant a new trial, though the party was negligent in not calling attention to the fact that the receipt of the letter was not proven.</p>

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The court found the following facts : In the year 1869, an arrangement was entered into between the Department of the Interior and the Department of War for the supply, through the Subsistence Department of the Army, of beef-cattle to the Indians, in pursuance of the fourth section of the act of April 10,1869, “ Malting appropriations for the current and contingent expenses of the Indian Department, and for fulfilling treaty stipulations…

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The court found the following facts : I. In December, 1865, and in January, February, and March., 1866, Maj. George M. O’Brien, the supervising and commanding officer of all troops doiug escort duty on the overland stage line from Plum Creek, Nebraska, to Fort Sedgwick, Colorado, ordered Lieut. A. 0.

Under the instruction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, in letter dated July 16, 1863, claimant was appointed principal or chief clerk to the assessor of internal revenue at Washington. This position he held till after the close of the fiscal year ending’ June 30, 1867.

The claimant admits that the same identical cause of action, as alleged in the defendants’ special plea in this case, was upon the merits thereof decided by this court against the claimant on the 17th of May, 1869; but the claimant contends that his case is analogous to another class of cases, which was duly allowed upon appeal by the Supreme Court of the United States, to wit: The employés upon the Treasury extension.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: In this case the original petition was brought by Charles W. McCord, for the use of William A. Steel, and Charles P. Chou-teau, James Harrison, and Jnles Yalle.

The Reporters’ statement of the case : After these suits were brought, and while they were both pending' and undetermined, the claimant, Roach, by leave of the court, filed his petition of interpleader, in which he claims that the cotton in controversy in these suits was his individual property at the date of its capture.

The history of the case is fully set forth in the petition. The claimant was arrested in Décember, 1862, by detectives and officers of the United States, and confined in the old Capitol prison, in Washington City, and detained there, closely imprisoned, until April 29,1863, without charges of any kind whatever, when he was discharged on the payment by James P. Gregory, for the claimant,'[to L. Turner, judge-advocate, of fifteen hundred dollars, on. the 29th of April, 1863.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The court found the following’ facts: On the 26th of February, 1862, the claimant, being the sole owner of the barge “ William E. Hunt,” placed her, under a regular charter-party, in the service of the United States. The vessel had no propelling power of her own, but was towed by a steam-tug in Government service.

The Reporters’ statement of tbe case : The facts of the case sufficiently appear in the opinions read. On the 9th day of March, 1865, General Thomas, commander of the Army of the Cumberland, required an immediate augmentation of his means of transportation, for present and prospective use.

The Reporters1 statement of tlie case: The facts of this case sufficiently appear in the opinion read. It is conceded that theclaimantacquired his title to the cotton in controversy by gift, from his two sous-in-law, Irwin and Hardee. Such a transfer of personal property is valid, and passes to the donee a perfect title to the property which was the subject of the gift. All the conditions of a complete and valid gift exist here.

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p>The prize commissioners of a United States district court employ in 1864 gaugers to weigh and gauge the cargoes of five prizes. Tlieprizes are condemned and sold, and the proceeds distributed as decreed by the court. The gaugers fail to pre-senttheir account for services until after the decree and distribution. The district court then orders that the account be allowed, and, there being “no money subject to tlie order of this court in this cause,” that the account be a charge upon and payable out of the fund for defraying the expenses of suits in which the Government is a parly, according to the provisions of the Prize proceedings Act 30th June, 1884. (13 Stat. L., §14, p. 311.)</p> <p>A district court of the United States is without power to make the expenses incident to the sale of prize property a charge upon the fund for defraying the expenses of suits in which the United States is a party, under the Prize proceedings Act 30th June, 1884, (13 Stat. L., §14, p. 311,) if there was a prize fund upon which the expenses could have been charged. Therefore an order subsequent to a decree of distribution, reciting in the words of the statute “ that there is no money subject to the order of this cowrt in this cause,” and directing that a gauger’s account for weighing and gauging the prize cargo be allowed and made a charge upon the fund for defraying expenses, &c., is an order made without jurisdiction, and will not sustain an action in the Court of Claims.</p>

Vie Reporters’ statement of the case: The court found the following facts: At the breaking out of the war of the rebellion Joseph Sierra was collector of customs for the district of Florida, at the port of Pensacola, and also superintendent of lights, and agent of the marine hospital, at the same place.

The Ocean Wave arrived in New York on the 10th of August, 1865, and was discharged from the service of the defendants as of this date, a written notice to this effect having been served on the claimant on August' 23, 1865. The claimant seeks to recover for alleged services during the interval of twelve days. The claim is founded on the failure or neglect of the defendant to serve notice of discharge on the date thereof, the 11th of August, 1865.

The Reporters’ statement of the case : The court found the following facts: In September, in the year 1864, the petitioners were the owners of three barges, named Lake Erie No. 13, Lake Erie No. 34, and Lake Erie No. 38.

The Reporters' statement of the case: The court found the following facts: The petitioner enlisted in the army for three years, and was enrolled on the 1st January, 1864, in Company B, Second Arkansas Volunteers, for a service of three years; he was mustered into the service January 16, 1864, to take effect from date of enrollment; he deserted November 12, 1864, and was • arrested June 2,1865; be was restored to duty with the loss of all pay and allowances due or to become…

The Reporters’ statement of the case : The facts found in this case sufficiently appear in the opinion read. Upon the well-established principles of the law of contracts, this contract being in writing, and the words “more or less” being free from ambiguity or technical significance, they must be interpreted according to their plain, ordinary, and popular meaning.

The plaintiffs and defendants join in the declaration and plea that they, the plaintiffs, are aliens, subjects of the King 'of Italy. The dispatches from the minister of justice at Rome to the minister of foreign affairs, and from the minister of foreign -affairs to the Italian minister at Washington, satisfactorily dispose of this question.

The Reporters1 statement of the case: The court found the following facts: I. On the 9th day of August, 1864, the claimant, being the-owner of the steamer Washington Irving, entered, by his. agent, George Olney, into a written agreement, or charter-party, annexed to and forming part of the petition, and the-steamer entered into the service of the United States under the charter-party.

The Reporters' statement of the case: In this case the petitioner sues on. a contract for the transportation of supplies for distances not covered by the payments made to him, and which were, as he alleges, received by him under protest.

<p> On Demurrer. </p> <p>A paymaster’s cleric alters vouchers and raises checks, and thereby obtains and embezzles money belonging to the Government. The petition alleges that the checks were signed by the paymaster, but does not allege on whom they were drawn. It is averred that upon the settlement of the paymaster’s accounts a deficiency was found, in consequence of the embezzlement, which ivas charged to him as a balance due, and'that he ivas suspended until he paid that balance info th é Treasury, and that th epaymen i was made underpressure of th e suspension an d his liability to be court-martialed and dismissed. After payment, and after his accounts have been settled and closed, he brings this suit for relief under the Disbursing officers Act 9th May, 1866, (14 Stat. I., p. 44.) T7¡e defendants demur.</p> <p>I. Where a paymaster’s petition, seeking relief under the Disbursing officers Act 9ih May, 1866, (14 Stat. L., p. 44,) avers that he drew cheeks which his clerk fraudulently raised, it will he presumed that the checks were drawn on some hank or hanker, against whom the paymaster would have recourse for the wrongful payment.</p> <p>II. The “ losses by capture or otherwise.” intended hy the Disbursing officers Act 9th May, 1866, (14 Stat. L., p. 44,) are losses hy capture, robbery, theft, fire, or unavoidable accident; hut not losses suffered through forgeries committed hy the officer’s clerk, as to which he would have recourse against the depositary.</p> <p>III. Where a paymaster, without protest, pays over to the Treasury a deficiency found against him, and his account is settled and closed, it is too late for him to seek relief under the Disbursing officers Act 9th May, 1866, (14 Stat. L., p. 44,) which limits the relief to losses “for which such officer was and is held responsible.” And his payment of the deficiency will conclude him, although’it was made under the pressure of his suspension, the stoppage of his pay, and his liability to be court-martialed and dismissed.</p>

The Reporters’ statement of tbe case: In. this case the court found the facts to be as follows: The claimant was, during the war of the rebellion, a resident of Marengo County, Alabama. While said war was in progress, he sold to the so-called Confederate States of America 177 bales of cotton, agreeing to accept in payment therefor eight per cent, bonds of said Confederate States, and retaining possession of the cotton, subject to future delivery.

The cotton was taken by William Budd, commanding the United States ship Somerset, on the 30th of October, 1803.

The Reporters1 statement of the case: The facts of this case were found to be as follows: I. About the time of the fall of Atlanta, in August, 1864, the Quartermaster Department charged with the duty of supplying General Sherman’s and General Thomas’ commands found itself sliorfc of forage, ancl active measures were taken by General Donaldson, chief quartermaster at Nashville, to supply the deficiency.

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p>Twenty-two hales of cotton, captured in Floyd County, Georgia, Jrniel, 1864, traced to the first fund in Price’s Case. The charges upon thatfumd stated. No question of law involved in this case.</p>

<p> On Motion. </p> <p> The court remands a ease to the general doelcet, that the petition may he amended so as to show that the suit is prosecuted in part for the use of a party other than the claimant of record. The claimant, without application to the court, or notice to the defendants, amends accordingly. The defendants move to strilce out the amended petition. </p> <p>It is not a matter of right in a claimant to amend Ms petition without leave of the court, and where a case is remanded to the general docket with merely a general leave to amend, a claimant cannot file an amended petition without first submitting it to the court or obtaining specific leave; but where an order remanding a case specifies the particular amendment allowed to he made, no application for leave to make it is necessary.</p>

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p>For the statement and history of these oases, see the head-note to the decision of the Supreme Coivrtin the same. (p. 103, ante.)</p> <p>I. Plate-printers in Hie Bureau of Engraving and Printing in tlie Treasury Department, paid hy the piece and emx>loying assistants, who are paid from their earnings by the disbursing officers of the Treasury, are not persons in the civil service, but merely contractors. They are not entitled to the benefits of the Twenty percent. Resolution, (14 Stat. L., p. 569.) Affirmed, (p. 105, ante.)</p> <p>II. Laborers on the Treasury extension, who are paid out of appropriations for contract-work and receive the highest rate of wages given by ordinary employers for similar services, are not employés in the civil service nor entitled to the benefits of the Twenty per cent. Resolution, (14 Stat. Lp. 569.) Overruled, (p. 105, ante.)</p> <p>HI. The Twenty per cent. Resolution, (14 Stat. L., p. 569,) being made up of numerous amendments hastily thrown together, will be construed, through the term “ the following-named Departments or any Bureau or division therof’’ to extend to the Commissary Bureau, though that Bureau is not'specifically named in the Joint Resolution, and the other military Bureaus of the War Department are. Affirmed, (p. 105, ante.)</p> <p>IV. Laborers in the Medical Department of the army are not employés in the civil service, and are not entitled to the benefits of the Twenty pm' cent. Besohition, (14 Stat. L., p. 569.) Overruled, (p. 105, ante.)</p> <p>V. Laborers employed by the Quartermaster Department at Washington, but whose services are rendered at Arlington, are not “ employed in the civil service of the United States at Washington ” within the meaning of the Twenty per cent. Resolution, (14 Stat. L., p. 569.) Affirmed, (p. 105, ante.)</p> <p>VI. Employés in the secret-service division of the Treasury, under the direction of the Solicitor of the Treasury, stationed at Washington, though liable to be stationed at any place where their duties require them to be, are employés “at Washington” within the meaning of the Twenty per cent. Resolution, (14 Stat. L., p. 569.) Affirmed, (p. 105, ante.)</p> <p>VII. The additional compensation given to employés in the civil service at Washington by the Twenty per cent. Resolution, (14 Stat. L., p. 569,) which provides that “ there shall he allowed and paid an additional compensation of twenty per centum on their respective salaries as fixed by laiv, orwhei'e no salary is fixed hy law upon their pay respectively for one year,” and that where an employ6 “shall he only entitled to receive salary or pay for a part of said year, the said twenty per centum shall he paid on the amount such person is so entitled to receive for services within said year,” did not accrue until the expiration of the fiscal year for which it was given. Therefore the statute of limitations did not begin to run against such claims until the expiration of the fiscal year. Affirmed, (p. 105, ante.)</p> <p>VIII. Semhle, the .Court of Claims has jurisdiction of cases arising under the Twenty per cent. Resolution USth February, 1867, (14 Stat. L., p. 569,) notwithstanding the repeal of'the resolution by the Act 12th July, 1870, (16 Stat. L., p. 250.) Affirmed, (p. 105, ante.)</p>

This case is not analogous to the cases of Marche and Pearson. Prior to November 1,1866, claimant’s official position may have been analogous to those cases, but he does not claim the twenty per cent, for the time prior to that date, but only for the.remaining eight months of that fiscal year, during which he was employed at Washington.

<p> On application for an Appeal. </p> <p>Congress passed a private act, to enable this court to c: hear and determine the claim • of E. Diekelman, a' subject of tlie King of Prussia.” The private aot does not confer the right of appeal on either party. The claim referred is for the detention of a ship in the port of New Orleans, daring the rehellion, hy Major-General Butler. The court decides that the Government is liable for the detention tinder the treaty with Prussia. The defendants seek to appeal. The claimant objects that under the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Atocha’s Case (p. 38, ante) there is no right of appeal.</p> <p>The decision of the Supreme Court in Atocha’s Case, (p. 38, ante,) that the right of appeal given by the Amended Court of Claims Act (12 Stat. L., p. 765) and by the Act 25th June, 1868, (15 Stat. L., p. 75, ) relates only to cases within the general jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, must he understood as ajiplicable only to cases like Atocha’s, viz, whore the Government is not primarily liable. In a case where the Government is primarily liable to the subject of a foreign power, and jurisdiction has been conferred by a special act, the Government has a right of appeal under ilia Act 25th June, 1868, (15 Stat. L., p. 75,) which provides that the Government shall have a right of appeal from any final judgment, “ whether such judgment shall have been rendered by virtue of the general or any special power or jurisdiction.”</p>

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p>■Seventy-eight hales of cotton captured at Broxvnsvüle, Tex., in 1865, traced to the fund in Malch and Odom’s Cases, (8 C. Cls. R., p. 566,) and the amount and condition of thefxmd restated. No question of laxo is involved in the case.</p>

This is a claim for the proceeds of thirty-two bales of cotton, seized near, hauled to, and shipped from Kingston, Bartow County, Georgia, in May and June, 1864, and is a duplicate, except in number of bales, of JE. M. Price’s Case. The United States Army took possession of that country May 19,1864. General Hooker made his headquarters at claimant’s house. 'It was four miles from Kingston.

<p> On Demurrer. </p> <p>'The petition sets forth that the claimant teas a watchman in the public grounds, under the Commissioner of Public Buildings, until April 12, 1870; that there has been withheld from him a balance of his compensation ; that he ivas entitled under_ the Act 22d July, 1866, (14 Stat. L., p. 321,) to $900 a year instead of only $720 a year, allowed to him under the Act 1st March, 1869, (15 Stat. L., p. 282.) The defendants demur.</p> <p>I. The watchmen on the public grounds, employed by the Commissioner of Public Buildings, are classed by the Appropriation Act 1st March, 1869, (15 Stat. L., p. 282,) among the legislative appropriations, and are not subject to the limitation of $720 a year imposed on the watchmen, &c., in the Executive Departments.</p> <p>II. The Appropriation Act 1867, (14 Stat. L., § 2, p. 466,) abolishing the office of Commissioner of Public Buildings and transferring the duties to the Chief Engineer of the Army, worts a transfer of duties, but not of jurisdiction, and does not surrender to the War Department the Congressional control of the public buildings and grounds.</p>

<p> On Motion. </p> <p> After the taking of a deposition for the claimant is concluded and the defendants counsel has left the place, the commissioner, at the request of the witness, interlines an addition to a reply given hy the witness to a question previously asked. The defendants, on discovering the additional clause, move that it he stricken out. </p> <p>Where testimony is taken "by deposition, the deposition must state only what the witness testified to in the presence of the parties or their counsel; and when the commissioner, at the request of a witness, subsequently interlines an addition to the testimony, it will be stricken out on motion.</p>

<p> On the Proofs, </p> <p>'The cotton in suit is captured near Abbeville, La., in May, 1863, and comes to the official custody of the post-quartermaster at Neio Iberia. It is not traced further.</p> <p>It was settled by Queyrouze’s Case (7 C. Cls. R., p. 402) that substantially all the cotton which came to the official custody of quartermasters in the Teche campaign reached New Orleans. Therefore, where captured cotton is traced to the official custody of the qmst-quartermaster at New Iberia, in May, 1863, it brings the case within the general rule that, a fund being shown derived from cotton captured at the time and place, the party need only trace his property to the hands of a.responsible offi-' ■cer designated by law to take charge of it.</p>

The facts of this case are as follows: The fifteenth section of the Act March 2, 1867, (14 Stat.

In this case the court found the facts to be as follows : In the year 1804, and while the matters hereinafter set forth were transpiring, the claimantswere the owners of the steamboat Isabella.

It is admitted that the applicant has all the qualifications required for the office of attorney and counselor at lawof this court, namely: age, good moral character, and a license to practice law in the highest court of the District of Columbia, exactly as these qualifications are set forth iri the thirteenth of the Buies of this court, page 8, published at the beginning of tbe present year, (1874.) But it is contended that, being a woman, the applicant cannot hold the…

The Reporters1 statement of the case : The court found the following facts : In February, 1867, when the contract was executed, the troops-at Fort Phil Kearney and in its vicinity needed forage, and the contract was made to supply an exigency thus existing, and which did not admit of the delay of advertising proposals.

<p> On the Plea to Jurisdiction. </p> <p>The claimant sues for an allowance for lealcage of distilled spirits, given l>tj statute and Treasiyry regulations, hut refused hg the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The defendants plead that this court has not jurisdiction of a revenue case.</p> <p>The Court of Claims has not jurisdiction of a case to recover an allowance for leakage of distilled spirits to which a distiller is entitled, by Treasury regulations, but which the Commissioner of Internal Revenue has refused to allow. The point is within the scope of the decision of the Supreme Court in Muoll’s Case, (7 C. Cls. R., p. 36,) although the party ' here has no other means of judicial redress.</p>

The Reporters' statement of tlie case: In this case the court found the facts to be as follows : From the 17th of July, 1865, to the 1st of August, 1867, the claimant was a clerk of the third class in the Treasury Department. For one hundred and twenty-two days prior to June 1,1867, he was, mainly from sickness, absent from his desk and place of duty in the Department; for all of which time he was paid his salary in full.

The Reporters' statment of tbe case. Tbe court found tbe following facts : That, on tbe 4tb day of March, 1862, tbe petitioner was tbe owner of tbe steamer Massasoit, and continued so to be during tbe continuance of tbe charter-party; that said charter-party was executed between tbe petitioner and tbe United States on said 4th day of March, 1862, and thereunder tbe said steamer continued in tbe service of the United States until tbe 26th November, 1863; that under said…

The Reporters’ statement of the ease : The ease was formerly tried, but a majority of the court being of the opinion that the claimant could not recover to his own nse, but might recover to the use of the insurers, it was remanded and an amendment allowed, (8 O. Cls.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: The'court found the following facts: I. On the 4th of August, 1SG3, the claimants and the defendants entered into the agreement or charter-party for the steamer Edwin Lewis. II.

The Beporters’ statement of the case : In this case the court found the facts to be as follows : I. The contract sued on was executed as alleged in the petition. II. Henry Fulenweider, the claimant’s intestate, performed the service stipulated for in said contract up to the time of his death, which occurred on the 25th of February, 1861. [II.

The Reporters’ statement of the ease: The court found the following facts: I. 'On the 21st April, 1864, the claimant and the defendants entered into the agreement or charter-party for the steamer Hero, annexed to and forming part of the petition, and the vessel entered the service of the Quartermaster Department, and continued in service thereunder until the 20th August, 1865. II.

The Reporters’ statement of the case: In tbe month of September, 1861, at Saint Louis, Mo., Leonidas Haskell, the claimant’s testator, sold and delivered to J. McKinstry, brigadier-general and assistant quartermaster of the Army of the United States at Saint Louis, under the command of Maj. Gen. John C. Frémont, a large number of mules, at the price of $119 each, for which, as the mules were from time to time received by the said McKinstry, he delivered to said Has-kell…

The Reporters’ statement of the case. The court found the following facts: I. On the 20th April, 1865, the Secretary of War issued and caused to be published in the public newspapers and otherwise ■ a proclamation, w hereby he announced that there would be paid by the War Department, “for the apprehension of John H. Surratt, one of Booth’s accomplices,” $25,000 reward ; and also that “ liberal rewards will be paid for any information that shall conduce to the arrest of…

The Reporters’ statement of tlie case: The motions to confirm or reject the report of Mr. Commissioner Eveleth in these cases were brought to a hearing upon the law-docket. The court, after hearing counsel for and against the confirmation of the report, in effect overruled it in certain particulars, and referred it back to the commissioner, with specific instructions for an amended report. On tbe coming in of tbe amended report it was adopted as tbe finding of facts.

The Reporters’ statement of tbe case : The court found the facts to be: That the petitioner is a subject of the kingdom of .Great Britain, and was resident in England during all the time of the transactions hereinafter stated.

The Reporters’ statemeut of the case: This, which is one of the earliest cases ever brought before the court, came to a final hearing in February, 1874, before the chief justice and three of the judges; but the subsequent illness and lamented death of Mr. Justice Milligan deprived the court of his assistance iu rendering a decision. All of the material facts appear with sufficient distinctness, in the opinion of the court.

The claimants contracted March 6, 1867, to a furnish all the labor required” at certain stores occupied by the United States, for a period of three years. The contract was afterward extended to July 15, 1870. After they had been more than a year in execution of it, the United States required them to pay, for the past and future, the cost of water, coal, and other expenses of running a steam-engine, and the salaries of certain officers theretofore paid by the United States.

The Reporters’ statement of tbe case : This case required eleven distinct findings of fact, there being substantially tbat-number of causes of action united in one suit. The findings, though of very great length in the aggregate, all rest upon the same clause of the contract, and are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

The Reporters' statement of tbe case: Tbe court found, among others, tbe following facts: That tbe petitioner, as trustee of Mrs. Louisa Fletcber, was on tbe 17tb day of August, 1861, seized in fee of said premises, containing about ninety-one acres, a dwelling-bouse with wings, measuring in all 150 by 40 feet, a large stable, and a frame building, with a garden, lawns, and walks, a fence all round tbe premises, and a substantial wall, about a quarter of a mile long, from…

The Reporters’ statement of the case: This case was formerly tried and a judgment rendered against the claimant, (8 0. 01s. P., p. 364.) Subsequently a new trial was granted, (ante, p. 133.) In addition to the facts found on the former trial the court make the following finding : Immediately after the claimant’s servicesfor carrying the California mail, as set forth in the second finding, had terminated, he presented his account therefor to the Postmaster-General, and…