DNITBD BTaTBS V. MKOVBB. Sût �the agent of Borne in the transaction ; that he was known to the plaintiff to be acting as such agent, and that immediately after receiving the money he paid it over to his principal. In respect to the receipt given by the assistant treasurer to the defendant, to be handed to the cashier, the defendant testified. that he did not read it or know its contents ; that he simply took it to the cashier and handed it to him as direeted. There was no evidence, except the fact that the paper was handed to him and held by him in passing from the office of the assistant treasurer to that of the cashier, that he received any information of its contents, or was in fact informed that the assistant treasurer received the bond subject to exam- ination and approval at Washington. Upon the question of the alleged forgery of the name of Eobert Mickle, the jury found specially that it was a forgery, and it is not claimed that there was any error committed in the trial of that issue. �The jury were instructed that the taking and holding of the receipt, till it was surrendered to the cashier, was some evidence of notice to the defendant of its contents ; that if in fact the defendant was informed that the bond was received subject to examination and acceptance at Washington, and. if the signature to the assignment was a forgery, the plain- tiff was entitled to recover; that if the defendant used the receipt without any knowledge in fact of its contents, but merely as a token to be handed to the cashier as he waa direeted, then he was not chargeable with knowledge of its contents; and there being no dispute that the defendant acted in good faith, and was known to be and treated as an agent in the transaction, and had paid over the money to hia principal, he was not liable to repay it. �Under these instructions the jury, besides finding the spe- cial verdict of forgery, found a verdict generally for the defend- ant. The plaintiff now moves for judgment on the ground that the finding of the fact of forgery entitles the plaintiff to a judgment, or in the alternative for a new trial for error of law and misdirection of the jury. �It is claimed that there was error in leavîng it to the jury to determine, as a question of fact, whether the giving of the ����
