CHADWICK V. tJNITED STATES. 757 �admitted the testimony, which ruling is the basis of the pres- ent assignment of errori Whether the coUector received the money, and, if so, whether he retained it, -were questions of fact for the jury, and, in order to enable them to determine these, it was clearly proper to admit the evidence, and they having f ound in f avor of the plaintiffs, that finding is conclu- eive. �7. Department regulations are frequently printed in the form of circulais, and furnished to collectors for their instruc- tion and guidance in the performance of their duties. Such a regulation was offered, in evidence by the plaintiffs; and having been admitted by the court, subject to the objection of the defendants, the ruling of the court is made the founda- tion of the seventh assignment of errors. Sworn testimony showed that a duplicate copy of the same was found in a book kept by the collector, in which large numbers of treas- ury circulars from the commissioner were posted, which the deputy collector turned over to the successor of the coUeetor appointed in his place. Deposits of the kind, in eases aris- ing under the revenue laws, are received by the collector in his officiai character, and the regulations of the department jrequire him to place the same to the order of the secretary, in the office of the assistant treasurer, as soon as it is received. Plainly, his sureties contracted that he would comply with that regulation. By the verdict, it is established that he did not do so in either of the cases mentioned. Beyond ail ques- tion the money became public money the moment the offer of compromise was accepted, within the true intent and meaning of the bond executed by the sureties. Nor is it doubted that ail the obligors in the bond would have been liable even if the offer of compromise had not been accepted; but it is not necessary to decide that point, as the jury were fully warranted in finding that both the offers were accepted. �8. Two cases of the kind are mentioned in the record, and in respect to the last, the plaintiffs called the deputy coUector, who testified that the person therein named came to him and said that he was charged with a criminal offence under the revenue law, which he wished to settle; that he wished to ����
