XINITED STATES V. WEEDON. 627 �by thîs firm, there was no one engaged in production of the matches who could be styled a match manufacturer. To state this proposition, it seems to me, is to refute it. It was unnecessary that ail of the members of the firm should ap- ply for stamps ; one of the copartnership was sufficient. He was a manufacturer of matches, assisted by his partners, and the bond given to secure the payment of the amount ordered by him as a manufacturer of matches is responsible for the value of those he obtained by virtue of its security. The court granted the prayer of the defendants upon this point, and, I think, did so erroneously. �The defendants asked the court, in the second place, to instruct the jury that the plaintiff could not recover, in this action, for any stamps deliyered to Weedon as an agent of the plaintiff, or in the double capacity of agent and manu- facturer of matches. In the accouijts offered in evidence by the defendants, fumished Weedon from the treasury depart- ment, and in that offered by plaintiffs, he is styled "Match Manufacturer and Internai Eevenue Agent." This was the only proof of his being a reyenue agent. Ail the stamps fur- nished him were fumished upon his own orders as "Match Manufacturer." It was for these, or the value of them, that the bond was sued. �There was no evidence that he had ever been appointed revenue agent. The façt that he was so styled in the ac- counts offered in evidence, sent him from the treasury by any ofiBcer of that department, does npt ,bind the , government. The proof shows that he received no stamps as revenue agent, sent to him as such, for any purpose, and the court should not bave granted the prayer which it did, which was likely to mislead the jury, and which there was no evidence to sup- port. �The judgment of the district court is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial. ����
