Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/86

 72 FEDERAL RErOUTEE. �Action at Law. �Ru/us Mallory, for the United States. Seneca Smith, for defendant. �Deady, D. J. This action is brought against the defendant, Phœbe M. Humason, as exeeutrix of the will of Orlando Humason, on two bonds executed by William Logan in his life-time, as Indian agent, together with said Humason and others as sureties, — the one on August 1, 1861, in the peijal sum of $25,000, and the other on July 1, 1862, in the sum of $20,000, and both conditioned that said Logan would "carefully discharge the duties" of said of&ce, and "faithfully expend all public moneys and honestly account for the same, and for all public property which shall or may come into his hands, without fraud or delay. The case was first before the court on a demurrer to the com- plaint, which -was overruled on June 7, 1879, (see opinion of that date.) It was again before the court on a demurrer to the third, fourth, and iifth pleas or defences contained in the answer, which was overruled on December 15, 1879, (see opinion of that date,) and on June 2, 1880, the plaintiff replied to the answer, and the cause was at issue upon questions of fact. On February 19, 1881, the cause was tried with a jury and a verdict was given for the defendant. �Gri the trial the plaintiff proved the commissions to Logan, as Indian agent, under which the bonds were executed as alleged in the complaint, and then offered in evidence the transcripts of two bonds, purporting to have been executed by William Logan, as Indian agent and principal, and 0. S. Savage, W. C. Moody, H. P. Isaacs, and 0. Humason, as sureties, on August 1, 1861, and July 1, 1862, respect- ively, and certified by the secretary of the treasury, under the seal of the department, on April 20, 1878, in pursuance of section 882 of the Revised Statutes, to be trae copies of bonds on file in that department. The^xeeution of the bond by the defendant's testator being denied by the answer, the introduction of the transcripts was objected to by coun- sel, because they were not certified to under and in the manner pres- cribed by section 886 of the Revised Statutes, instead of section 882 thereof, and the objection was sustained. The plaintiff then asked to become nonsuit, but the defendant objected, and asked that the case be submitted to the jury, which was done, with direction to find a verdict for the defendant. �In the case of the U. S. v. Isancs, it being an action upon the same bonds, there was a stipulation that'it should abide the event of this action, and thereupon an order was made directing the latter to be included in the entry of the trial and verdict of the former; and the ��� �