162

FEDERAL REPORTER,

vol. 45·.

time, the. session will :!Tbese are equally important in cases where the sessions are short, frequently interrupted,a.nd frequently resumed, as they are in whel1e the sessions are longer, less frequent, and separated by intervals. oftime longer and more distinct. In the absence, therefore, of any express words of limitation of sections 583 a.nd 672,. I am of opinion that they apply to the days ,in:question. . To ,state my opinion in another. form, I think·thewords" the comlll.encement of anyregular,adjonrned, or special terrn,"'ili. section 583, and,!'aIiy regular or adjourned or special session.." inseotion 672, refer to any day at which a court is appointed to sit, whether by regular app()intment in the statute, or by adjournment ot,special appointment by orderofthejudge,and .pu:Dsuaritto law. The j,udgment will therefore be that the petitioner reoover his fees for 99. days, at $5 a day, amounting to 8495.

eases

DAVIS

V.UNITED STATES.

(Dfstr1ct.Co'Wrt, D. Maine.

January 19,1891.)

L CLEU OJ!' .' ... . . The disallowance 1:>,1 the first comptrolter of the treasurr..of fees claimed by a olerk of the conrt is not conclusive againsttlie clerk on a petitIon by' him for the recovery obuch fees. Following 1:larmon v. U.S., 48 Fed.:Jlep. 561. S. BAME__PKOPER CHARGES' AGAINST UNITED. STATES. ' Tho clerk is entitledt<JfeE!s for entering orders of approval of clerk's and district attorney's andmllorshal'!!and commissiOner's accounts, and filing papers with same, for swearing bailiffs, for filing venire8 anq. precepts to distribute, and other papers, and for taking acknowledgments of sUretielion recognizances. .

At Law. Edward M. Rand, for petitioner. G.eM'ge E. Bird, U. S:· Atty.

WllBll, J. This is a petitiori by'the clerk of both the circuit and dig.;. trictcourts to recover the sum of 8141.Q5, fees forofHcial services charged in his accounts, and disallowed by the treasury accounting officers. The charges are classified undedhe'following heads: 1. Entering orders of approval of clerk's accounts, and iliing papers -.. .. $20 00 wIth same, 2. Entering orders of approval of accounts of the U. S. attorney, and filing accompanying papers, ' 2770 S. Entering orders of approval: of plllrshal's accounts, and filing accompanying papers. ... ' . 51 3() 4. Entering orders of appro,Val cOmmissioner's accounts. 2291) 6. Swearing bailiffs. '''''. . - . .'. 80 Filing venires and precepts to distribute. 560 7. Filing papers. 880 8. Taking acknowledgments of sureties on recognizances, 4 25 Q. Excessive reduction by;reason of error in computation. 26

UNITED STATES iI. NATIONAL EXCHANGE BANK.

163

FINDING .' OF .FACTS.

• '. All the services charged, for were rendered. Fees for these services at the allowed' by the fee-bill were' regularly' included in the clerk's stated accounts, which accounts were verified by his oath,and in the actual presence of the United States attorney, were presented for approval in this court; were approved, 'and were forwarded to the proper treasury officers. The charges were disallowed, and payment refused.' The item for error :in computation is establi..llhed. Ofthe fees claimed the sum of$10.86 was disallowed by the first to March 3,1887.
  CoNCLUSIONS OF LAW··
  

That the action ofthecefuptroller respe::lting the $10.86 before March 3, 1887, does not deprive the court of jurisdiction has been decided by the circuit eOllrt of this circuiHn Harmonv.- U. 8.,43 Fed. Rep. 561. That decision is authoritative here. All the other charges' were proper and the clerk is ,entitled to be paid them by the United States. Erwin v. U. S.,'37 Fed. Rep. 481; Jonesv. Same, 39 Fed. Rep. 412, 413; Goodrich v. Same; 35 Fed. Rep'. 194; Rand v. Same, 36 Fed. Rep. 674; Dimmick v. same, ld. 83. The error of computation should be corrected, and the amount paid. Judgment is to be entered for the petitioner for $141.65.

UNITED STATES

v.

NATIONAL EXCHANGE BANK.

(Oircuit Oourt, E. D. WiBconBin.

L BDXs-PAnBNT ON FORGED INDOR8BMENT-LI.uJILITY.

2, 1891.)

A bank that has paid a ch!lck on a forged indorsement is, not responsible therefor to the drawer where the person who committed the forgery was identified to the bank by one who believed him to be the/ayee, and was in fact the person to whom the drawer had delivered the check, an whom he believed to be the payee. The neglect of a drawer of 8 check, for more than a month after discovering that it had been paid upon a forged indorsement, to notify the bank that it will hold i' responsible therefor, releases the bank from liability, even though it had notice gf the forgery as soon as the drawer had.

S.

8.UrE-NOTIOB-LACHES.

At Law.

Elihu Colman, U. S. Atty. Van Dyke Van Dyke, -for defendant.

«

BUNN, J. Thill action is brought to recover the sum of 81,259.05, the amount of a check drawn by the post-office department at Milwaukee on the defendant, in favor of one Anton Erben, and made payable to him or his order on Decembel"3, 1889, and paid on that day by the bank to one Adolph Schuman upon' a forged indorsement.' The facts, about which there is no- controversy, are substantially tHese: Some time