64:0 FEDERAL REPOaTEfi. �Ukited States ». Eoberts and others.* �(Oirmtt Court, 8. D. Ohio, W. D. February, 1882.) �1. Officebs— AccoTTNiS wiTH Government — iblegraph Messa ses— Excessive �CHAKOBS. �Wliere an officer paid for officiai telegrapli messages more than Ihe rate agieed uponbetween the government and the company, held, that if the offlcer had no notice of the price agreed iipon between the government and the telegiaph Company for such messages, and if he paid the price deraanded by the company, in good faith, he was entitled to credit therefor in his account. �i. Bame— Samb — Indian Interpretees' SAiiAiuEs— Ohangb m Law. �An Indian agent, upon assuming his office, was instructed to pay interpreters a yearly salary of $500. Subsequently, wlthout his knowledge, the 1aw was changed and their salaries fixed at $400. The agent continued to pay $500. Ueld, that he was entitled to credit therefor in his accounts. �i. Salary of Officer — When it Commences— Indian Agent. �An Indian agent was commissioned on September 28, 1872; he gave bond, took the oath of office, and was in readiness for duty October 15th. November 4th he received orders and started for his destination. He arrived at his post and reported for duty .January 11, 1873, and ou Januarj 20th he took charge of the agency. Held, that he was entitled to his salary from the time he actually went to work for the government. �This was an action on the officiai bond of James E. Eoberts, as Indian agent, upon vouchers disallowed by the accounting officers in the settlement of his accounts. Amount claimed, $693.38. The defence was that all money received by him had been lawfully ex- pended, and that the vouchers were improperly disallowed. �The following questions arose during the progress of the case: �(1) It appeared from the evidence that Roberts had sent a number of officiai telegrams over a line having a contract with the government establishing a certain rate at whieh officiai messages should be paid ; that he was charged, and in good faith paid, more than the contract price, and had no knowledge of the rate flxed between the government and the company, and no meaus of knowing whether the price he paid was reasonable or unreasonable. �(2) It also appeared from the evidence that when Boberts took charge of the agency he received written instructions to pay interpreters' salaries at the rate of $500 a year, and that he did pay them at this rate during his term of office; that he did not know that the law had been changed and a new statute passed during his term of office, (ixing the salaries of interpreters at his agency at the rate of $400 a year, and that lie had received no instructions from the department notifying him of such change. �(3) It also appeared from the evidence that James E. Roberts waa commis- sioned on September 28, 1872 ; that on October 15th he gave bond and took �*Reported by J. C. Harjjer, Iia4., of tlio Ciutiniia!,! Uiir. ��� �
