UNITED BTATES V. BIXBY. 375 �The conclusion of the court is that the defendant did net occupy the premiBes on August 14, 18e8, as a missionary sta- tion or otherwise, either by itself or the American Board, and that it was not deterred from so doing by the danger from Indian hostilities, but voluntarily abandoned the same before September 10, 1847, without any intention or expectation of re-occupying it under any circumstances, and therefore the patent therefor to the defendant was -wrongfully issued; and the decree of the court will be that the defendant be declared . a trustee for the several plaintiffs herein, for so much of the premises described in the patent as is claimed by them in their several suits, and that the defendant, within 90 days, by a Bufficient conveyance or conveyances, containing proper covenants against its own acts» to be approved by the mastor of this court, release to.the said plaintiffs, aocordingly, ail right and title to said premises, and that it pay the plaintiffs their costs and expenses of suit. ���Dnitbd States v. Bixbt. (District Gouri, D. Indiana. April 4, 1881.) �1. EuBBZZIiBMENT — ASSIGNEB m BanKEUPTCY— RbV. St. f 5504. �While an assignee in bankruptcy is an offlcer of the court, he is not an offlcer witliin the purview of section 5504, Rev. 8t., deflniug the offence of embezzlement by court offlcers, and there seems to be no other statute embracing assignees in banliruptcy for the specifie ofi'ence of embezzlement. �Indictment for embezzlement by assignee in bankruptcy. Motion to quash, �C. L. Holstein, U. S. Att'y, and L. H. Richardson, Ass't, for the United States. �Gordon, Lamb e Shepherd, for defendant. �Gresham, D. J. The defendant is indicted for embezzling funds -which came into his hands as assignee of several estates in bankruptcy. The indictment is based upon sec- tion 6504 of the Eevised Statutes, which reads as follows: ��� �
