UNITED STATES V. m'cARTNEY. 105 �tioned, consisted of liis own commissions and his salary, and that of the assessors, assistant assessors and clerks, and the general expenses of his office. �It appeared, by duly verified transcripts from the books of the treasury department, that MoCartney received drafts monthly from the government on this disbursing account, and rendered monthly returns from June, 1866, to the end of Maroh, 1869. He went ont of office May, 1, 1869, and it did not appear that he had either drawn or paid ont any moneys during the month of April, and there -n'as some evidence that he had done neither. A balance of $7,155.17 appeared to be left in his hands by his latest return, from which had been deducted by the department his compensation for April, and some other allowances, leaving apparently due the sum now demanded, $3,545.92. �The act of July 20, 1868, (15 Stats. 145,) provided for the appointment of store-keepers, by the secretary of the treasury at a compensation to be fixed by the commissioner of internai revenue, not exceeding five dollars a day, and, by the papers in the case, it appeared that McCartney claimed credit for payments to such store-keepers amounting in all to $3,- 572.57, and that the department had allowed him on that account $3,293.99. This was all the evidence tending to show that McCartney had been required, as such disbursing agent, to pay the fees of store-keepers under the act of 1868. �The plaintiiïs offered to put in evidence certain other papers purporting to be copies of the monthly requisitions of McCartney for money to pay his various disbursements, with the action of the department thereon, for the purpose of show- ing how much money was drawn for the payment of the fees of store-keepers. These papers were under the seal of the treasury department and the signature of the secretary, but not that of the register, and were excluded by the court. �The learned judge was asked by the defendants to rule that the bond was avoided by the passage of the act of 1868, and the action under it; and the plaintiiïs contended that it remained wholly valid, and required a due accounting for the excenses of store-keepers. The court ruled that the bonrt ��� �
