United States v. Hart

• Decision Date: 30 July 1888
• Docket Number: Civil 220
• Citation: 2 Ariz. 415,19 P. 4
• Parties: THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HENRY L. HART, et al., Defendants and Appellees
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

19 P. 4

2 Ariz. 415

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HENRY L. HART, et al., Defendants and Appellees

Civil No. 220

Supreme Court of Arizona

July 30, 1888

APPEAL from a Judgment of the District Court of the First Judicial District in and for the County of Pima. Wm. H. Barnes, Judge.

Affirmed.

Owen T Rouse, U. S. District Attorney, for the United States.

Haynes Jeffords & Franklin, and Hereford & Lovell, for Appellees.

Wright C. J. Porter and Barnes, Jj., concur.

OPINION

The facts are stated in the opinion.

WRIGHT, C. J.

This suit was brought to recover from the defendants the sum of $ 4,016.02, the amount found due the government from the defendant Henry L. Hart, as Indian agent at San Carlos, upon the adjustment of his accounts by the proper officers of the treasury department. The other defendants are the sureties on his official bond. The complaint seems to have been in the usual form. The answer, after a general denial, alleges in its third count, as a set-off against the demand of plaintiff, certain credits claimed to be due from the government to said defendant Hart, as such Indian agent, the vouchers for which credits had been duly presented to the proper accounting officers of the treasury department, and by them disallowed in whole or in part. The plaintiff demurred to this count of defendant's answer, and for grounds of demurrer alleged "(1) that the allegations are not sufficient to constitute a defense; (2) that the statements in said count do not constitute an offset; (3) that said count is indefinite and uncertain; (4) that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense." The court overruled the demurrer, and admitted evidence to prove these credits, which had been so disallowed in whole or in part were just, and should be allowed against the claim of the government. To the action of the court in overruling the demurrer, and in admitting evidence touching these rejected vouchers, the plaintiff duly excepted, and, alleging that this was error on the part of the nisi prius judge, relies upon these grounds for reversal of the judgment.

It is difficult to see upon what theory the position of the learned counsel for the plaintiff is tenable. In the light of chapter 20 of the act of March 3, 1797 (see section 951, Rev. St. U S.,) and the repeated decisions of the United States supreme court relating thereto, it would seem that this was no longer an open question. The first part of said section reads as follows: "In suits brought by the United States against individuals, no claim for a credit shall be admitted upon trial, except such as appears to have been submitted to the accounting officers of the treasury for their examination, and to have been by them disallowed in whole or in part." No question is raised as to the truth of the averments in defendant's answer, and the credits in question were claimed to be due from the government to the defendant Hart, the vouchers for which had been presented to the proper accounting officers of the treasury, and had been by them disallowed in whole or in part. If this were so, were not these claims, thus rejected in whole or in part by said accounting officers, admissible in evidence on the trial below, by virtue of the provisions of said section 951 of the United States Revised Statutes? And, if they were thus admissible, does it not logically and legally follow that legal evidence tending to prove that they were just and equitable was also admissible? To say that the claim itself was admissible by virtue of section 951, but that evidence to establish the claim was not admissible, would be absurd. What congress meant was simply that no evidence to prove a claim for credit should be admitted at the trial, in suits between the government and individuals, unless it first be shown that such claim had been duly presented to the proper accounting officers of the treasury department, and has been by them in whole or in part disallowed. That was the case here. But the learned counsel for plaintiff claims that the vouchers themselves should have been introduced. That was unnecessary, as by section 866 of the United States Revised Statutes it is provided that a transcript of the books and proceedings of the treasury department, when properly authenticated, shall be admissible in evidence, that properly authenticated copies of all papers, etc., should have the same force and effect as the originals would have; the intention of congress being manifest to do away with the trouble, risk, and expense of procuring the originals, by making duly authenticated transcripts and copies thereof equal in dignity and import to the originals themselves. The admission of the transcript from the treasury department, duly authenticated, showing that the vouchers for the claims set up by Hart had been...