Saunders v. United States
| Decision Date | 02 April 1896 |
| Docket Number | 17. |
| Citation | 73 F. 792 |
| Parties | SAUNDERS v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maine |
Geo. E Bird, for petitioner.
Albert W. Bradbury, U.S. atty.
The petition in this case was filed April 15, 1895. Proof of service as required by the statute has been made. The claim of the petition is for fees for attendance of himself and deputies before United States commissioners, and bringing in and guarding prisoners, on the same days that the circuit court or district court was also in session, and fees for attendance on those courts was charged and paid. The time covered by the petition is from February 6, 1890 to March 8 1894. For the marshal's personal attendance 89 days, and for that of his deputies 91 days, in all 180 days, at $2 per day are charged, or $360, in the petition as originally filed. By amendment, charges of $4 on July 22, 1891, and $4 on September 19, 1891, are stuck out leaving claimed the sum of $352. The United States has pleaded that the services specified in the petition were never performed, and has also filed a counterclaim or account in set-off to the amount of $504, for moneys before paid to this petitioner, as the United States now contends, improperly, for the service of 252 warrants of commitment during the years 1890, 1891, and 1892, for which it is said no fees were by law allowed. The items included in the petition were never entered in the accounts of the marshal that were presented from time to time to the court, and approved, for the reason that it was understood that such charges would be not allowed; and now the United States contends that the charges are improper.
At the hearing, the government did not contest the actual attendance as charged, except as to four items, viz. November 2, 1891 in the case of Tripp, before Commissioner Bradley, $4; November 14, 1891, case of Rogers, before Commissioner Rand, $2; May 23, 1893, Johnson's case, before Commissioner Bradley, $4; September 21, 1893, case of Carleton et al., before the same commissioner, $4. But the proof is plenary as to all the other items in the petition, and as to the charges of May 23, 1893, and November 14, 1893. The charge of September 21, 1893, is proved to be a mistake of date. The service was actually rendered on the 20th day of September, and is so entered in the officer's calendar. I do no think this mistake is fatal to the petitioner's right to recover for this item. But the charge in Tripp's case, under date of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lovering v. United States
...the United States district and circuit courts. These charges are allowed upon the authority of Dill v. U.S. (D.C.) 78 F. 614; Saunders v. U.S. (D.C.) 73 F. 792, affirmed v. Dill, 29 C.C.A. 586, 86 F. 79; U.S. McMahon, 164 U.S. 81, 17 Sup.Ct. 28, 41 L.Ed. 357; U.S. v. Saunders, 120 U.S. 126,......
-
United States v. Dill
... ... A United States marshal is entitled to charge for ... the attendance of himself and his deputies before United ... States commissioners on the same days on which circuit or ... district courts are in session, and fees for attendance on ... these courts are charged and paid. Saunders v. U.S., ... 73 F. 792; U.S. v. Kerns. Counsel for the United States ... contends that said deputies were not entitled to said pay, ... for the reason that, on the days for which they charge for ... attendance before United States commissioners they were ... actually paid attendance upon the ... ...
-
Dill v. United States
... ... United States marshal is entitled to charge for the ... attendance of himself and his deputies before United States ... commissioners on the same days on which circuit or district ... courts are in session and fees for attendance on these courts ... are charged and paid. Saunders v. U.S., 73 F. 792; ... U.S. v. Kerns ... Counsel ... for the United States contends that said deputies were not ... entitled to said pay for the reason that on the days for ... which they charge for attendance before United States ... commissioners they were actually paid ... ...