Page:Decisions of the Comptroller General of the United States Volume 4.pdf/28

Rh and thereby terminating your jurisdiction in so far as subsequent hearings such as would entitle you to fees therefor were concerned. All that remained for you to do at the postponed date was to formally close your docket, noting the fact thereon that an indictment had been returned by the grand jury December 5, 1919, for which service you were not entitled to the per diem fee. The disallowance is sustained.

Item 2. Page 2. United States v. Prank Petrus. Charge for a per diem for hearing and deciding on criminal charges February 12, 1920.______$5.00

The item was disallowed for the reason defendant was indicted by the grand jury January 20, 1920.

An examination of the voucher shows defendant arrested and arraigned before you January 12. No per diem charged in this case for said day for the reason a per diem for January 12 was charged on page 1 of your account in the case of United States v. Steve Skerda. The case was continued to February 12, but as an indictment had been returned by the grand jury January 20, all that remained to be done on February 12 was to formally close your docket, for which service no per diem is allowable. The disallowance is sustained.

Item 3. Page 3. United States v. Paul Barber. Charge for per diem for hearing and deciding on criminal charges September 3, 1920________$5.00

The item was disallowed for the reason information filed in the district court and defendant arraigned in court and pleaded guilty August 28, 1920.

The voucher shows that the defendant was arrested and arraigned before you August 3. No per diem was charged in this case for that date for the reason a per diem was charged on page 2 of your account for said date in the case of United States v. Samuel Berger. The case was continued to September 3, 1920, but as an information had been filed in the district court August 28, and the defendant appeared in said court and pleaded guilty to the charge and was held to answer to the court, there could have been no "hearing and deciding" by you on September 3, 1920. The disallowance is sustained.

Section 3 of the act of June 10, 1922, 42 Stat. 627, fixes one base pay for each respective grade in the Naval Reserve Force and grants no right to pay of a higher period by reason of length of service; accordingly a