Ann. 98-State ex rel. Morris v. Mason, 43 | dence of the facts recited in it, and of La. Ann. 642, 9 So. 776-Clemens v. Meyer, authority to levy. Den ex dem. Murray v. 44 La. Ann. 393, 10 So. 797-Milford V. Greenbush, 77 Me. 333-Whiton Hoboken Land & Improv. Co. 18 How. 272, v. Albany City Ins. Co. 109 Mass. 30-People v. Mc15: 372 Kinney, 10 Mich. 106-Nixon v. Porter, 34 Miss. 708, 69 Am. Dec. 408-Barcello v. Hapgood, 118 N. C. 731, 24 S. E. 124-Miles v. Stevens, 3 Pa. St. 42, 45 Am. Dec. 621 Southwark Bank v. Com. 26 Pa. 451-Fulham v. Howe, 60 Vt. 357, 14 Atl. 652. "Commissioner U. S. court" for a certain 1073. A warrant signed by a person as district is not inadmissible on the ground that it does not purport to be issued by any officer authorized to issue a warrant, and court. Starr v. United States, 164 U. S. 1066. A passport describing one as a citi-that he is not a commissioner of the circuit zen of the United States is inadmissible on an issue of citizenship, where there is no law regulating the issuance of passports, or specifying the evidence upon which it may be done, or declaring their legal effect, the requirement and sufficiency of the evidence upon which the passport is issued being discretionary with the Secretary of State. Urtetiqui v. D'Arcy, 9 Pet. 692, 9: 276 Cited in Re Gee Hop, 71 Fed. 276. 1074. Scale bills accompanied by a certificate of the surveyor general, stating, as required by Minn. Stat. 1894, § 2402, the amount due him thereon, and that he scaled the logs, timber, or lumber relying upon the lien, and that he claimed a lien thereon for the amount thereof and costs of collection, are competent evidence. Lindsay & Co. v. Mullen, 176 U. S. 126, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 325, 1067. Any document on file in the depart-P. ments of the government or in the courts, which, by the act of Congress of March 3, 1891, is made competent evidence on the merits for claims for Indian depredations, is competent on the issue of amity, as amity is an essential prerequisite to recovery. Collier v. United States, 173 U. S. 79, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 330, 43: 621 1068. A list filed in the Indian Depart ment, and which, or a copy of which, had been sent to a special agent to assign or allot lands to the Indians, is not admissible in evidence in a legal controversy, to prove the age of one of said Indians. Hegler v. Faulkner, 153 U. S. 109, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 779, 38: 653 1069. The Army registers, when authenticated by the Secretary of War, are evidence of the facts (strictly so) which they contain, but not, by any inference, of the pay of officers, or of the correctness of any classification of the officers of the departments into a general staff of the Army. Wetmore v. United States, 10 Pet. 647, 9: 567 1070. A ruling of the court in an action by the United States upon the official bond of a tax collector, rejecting an original statement signed by the collector showing the amounts collected and the amounts abated as uncollectible, was erroneous. United States v. Hunt, 105 U. S. 183, 26: 1037 1071. An assessment upon stockholders of a national bank, made by the comptroller of the currency, cannot be excluded from evidence in an action against a stockholder on the ground that the assessment is an attempt of an executive officer to exercise judicial functions. Bushnell v. Leland, 164 U. S. 684, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 209, 41: 598 Cited in McCormick v. Market Nat. Bank, 165 U. S. 548, 41 L. ed. 821, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 433- Columbia Nat. Bank v. Mathews, 29 C. C. A. 496, 56 U. S. App. 636, 85 Fed. 939-Tillinghast v. Bailey, 86 Fed. 47-Wallace v. Hood, 89 Fed. 21-Aldrich v. Campbell, 38 C. C. A. 349, 97 Fed. 665. 1072. A Treasury distress warrant is evi 44: 400 1075. A marshal's return made pending a suit is admissible to show title at the commencement of the suit, by virtue of the sale previously made. Remington v. Linthicum, 14 Pet. 84, 10: 364 1076. The return of a marshal in action by the United States is admissible as proof of notice to syndics of the defendant of debts due to the United States. Field v. United States, 9 Pet. 182, Cited in Langdon v. Summers, 10 Ohio St. 82. 9: 94 1077. In order to show that a subscription to railroad stock and the issue of bonds by a city were ratified by a majority of its taxpayers, the poll books of an election held for that purpose, authenticated by the certificate of the judges and clerks of the election, are admissible in evidence. Hannibal v. Fauntleroy, 105 U. S. 408, 26: 1103 1078. Proceedings of the city council showing the result of an election reported to it, held for the purpose of ratifying a subscription to railroad stock and the issue of bonds, and its resolution instructing the mayor to issue the bonds, are admissible to prove that a majority of the taxpayers voted in favor of ratification. Hannibal v. Fauntleroy, 105 U. S. 408, 26: 1103 1079. In determining under what act and by what authority a county court issued the county are competent evidence. county bonds, statements on the records of Knox County v. Ninth Nat. Bank of New York, 147 U. S. 91, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 267, 37: 93 Editorial notes. Officer's return as evidence. Certificate as Prima Facie Evidence of Of Surveyor, see infra, 1180, 1181. Certificate to Deposition as Evidence Conclusiveness of Certificate of Dis- 1080. [A certificate of a public officer, made evidence by statute, will not be rejected because it contains some improper evidence. Johnson v. Hocker (Pa. Sup. Ct.) 1 Dall. 406, 1: 197] 1081. The certificate of the Librarian of Congress, that two copies of a copyrighted book were received by him within ten days after the publication, is competent evidence, although the certificate is not under seal. Belford, C. & Co. v. Scribner, 144 U. S. 488, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 734, 36: 514 1082. An exemplification of the record by the librarian of Congress, required to be made on the filing of the title of a book to be copyrighted before publication, is not competent proof of the deposit of two copies of the book after publication; the certificate relates only to the filing of the title. Merrell v. Tice, 104 U. S. 557, 26: 854 1083. The deposit of two copies of a book after its publication, with the Librarian of Congress, cannot be proved by a memorandum to that effect under or indorsed upon the certificate of the filing of title. Merrell v. Tice, 104 U. S. 557, 26: 854 1084. A memorandum of the fact and date of the deposit of the work, purporting to be signed by the clerk, is sufficient prima facie certificate of such deposit, and competent evidence of the fact and of the date, without further proof of the signature of the clerk, it being on the same paper with his signature as clerk to the certificate of the deposit of the title; but it is open to the defendants to show that his signature to the memorandum is not genuine. Callaghan v. Myers, 128 U. S. 617, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 177, 32: 547 1085. Certificates of other officers, referring to a record of confiscation collaterally, although as the basis of their own official action, are not legal proof of the fact itself. Garcia de Sabariego v. Maverick (Sabariego v. Maverick) 124 U. S. 261, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 461, 31: 430 1086. The certificate of the Secretary of State is evidence to prove the diplomatic character of a person accredited as a minister by the government of the United States. Re Baiz, 135 U. S. 403, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 854, 34: 222 Cited in Jones v. United States, 137 U. S. 216, 34 L. ed. 697, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 80. 1087. [A certificate, not under oath, of late officers of a foreign country, is not evidence. Jones v. Ross (Pa. Sup. Ct.) 2 Dall. 143, 1: 324] 1088. An official certificate of the governor of the island of Martinique, concerning a matter presumptively within his authority, is proper evidence. Bingham v. Cabbot, 3 Dall. 19, 1: 491 Cited in Charles Green's Son v. Salas, 31 Fed. 113. 1089. In the abstract, a certificate of survey is not legal evidence, but parties may criterion for deciding on by compact adopt that or any other as the their relative rights. Dorr v. Pacific Ins. Co. 7 Wheat. 581. 5: 528 Cited in Potter v. Ocean Ins. Co. 3 Sumn. 43, Fed. Cas. No. 11,335-Griswold v. National Ins. Co. 3 Cow. 118. 1090. The certificate of registration of a vessel and proof as to the flag carried by her are competent evidence to show the nationality of the vessel and its owners. St. Clair v. United States, 154 U. S. 134, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1002, 38: 936 1091. A certificate of registry, however irregularly or wrongfully an enrolment may have been obtained at the customhouse, may be admitted in evidence to show ownership of the vessel, in an action for insurance. Ocean Ins. Co. v. Polleys, 13 Pet. 157, 10: 105 1092. The certificate of a recorder, indorsed on a deed which is apparently ancient and genuine, is competent and sufficient evidence that it was recorded at the time therein stated. Applegate v. Lexing ton & C. County Min. Co. 117 U. S. 255, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 742, 29: 892 1093. Certificate books of canal collectors are not admissible to show the quantity of distilled spirits produced from a distillery and shipped over the canal, where the canal is operated by lessees from the state, and the collectors are not public officers, and have no personal knowledge of the matters stated in such books. Chaffee v. United States, 18 Wall. 516, 21: 908 - Editorial note. to which he is apparently authorized, as Certificate of public officer, in matters as evidence of his official character, of his signature, and his local jurisdiction. Patents for inventions. 2: 101 Admissibility of Original Patent in Action for Infringement of Reissued Patent, see infra, 2646. Admissibility of Patents not Set Up in Answer to Show State of Art, see infra, 2664. Admissibility of Letters Patent to a Third Person Not Set Up as Defense to Infringement, see infra, 2678. 1094. A patent signed by "an acting com missioner of patents" is evidence without proof of his title to the office. York & M. Line R. Co. v. Winans, 17 How. 30, 15: 27 1095. In an action for the infringement of a patent, where the machine of the defendant is patented, his patent may be received in evidence, although posterior in date to that of the plaintiff. He should have the benefit of the presumption in his favor arising from the investigation and judgment of the public officers as to the novelty and originality of his invention. Corning v. Burden, 15 How. 252, 14: 683 Cited in Blanchard v. Putnam, 8 Wall. 425. 19 L. ed. 435, 2 Whitman, Pat. Cas. 227--Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co. 151 U. S. 208, 38 L. ed. 131, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 310-American Pin Co. v. Oakville Co. 3 Blatchf. 195, Fed. Cas. No. 313-Burden v. Corning, 2 Fisher, Pat. Cas. 497, Fed. Cas. No. 2,143-Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Gardiner, 3 Cliff. 413, 4 Fisher. Pat. Cas. 229, Fed. Cas. No. 5,591 Hoffheins v. Brandt, 3 Fisher, Pat. Cas. 230, Fed. Cas. No. 6,575-Worswick Mfg. Co. v. Kansas, 38 Fed. 247-Norton v. Eagle Automatic Can Co. 59 Fed. 138-Ransome v. Hyatt, 16 C. C. A. 186, 29 U. S. App. 715, 69 Fed. 149-Wilgus v. Germain, 19 C. C. A. 191, 44 U. S. App. 369, 72 Fed. 776-Powell v. Leicester Mills Co. 103 Fed. 487-Ryder v. Schlichter, 121 Fed. 100-Goss Printing Press Co. v. Scott, 134 Fed. 884. Official memoranda. Entry on Post Bill as Evidence of Transmission of Letter, see infra, 2537. Sufficiency of Copyright Memoranda, see infra, 2615. See also supra, 1083, 1084; infra, 1330, 1331, 1334. 1096. The memorandum at the foot of the record of a deed, although unsigned, being one which it was the duty of the recorder to make, by the nature of his office and without special statutory direction, is evidence of the date of registration of the deed. Stebbins v. Duncan, 108 U. S. 32, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 313, 27: 641 1097. Where a county school commissioner in Missouri kept in a book a record of his transactions in selling the school lands in the county, which was deposited and preserved in the county clerk's office. it is proper evidence of his official acts. Hedrick v. Hughes, 15 Wall. 123, 21:52 Cited in Palmer v. Low, 98 U. S. 14, 25 L. ed. 63. 1098. Entries made by a jailer in a book which he is required to keep, whether by statute or by command of his superior, are competent evidence to show the presence of a prisoner in the jail on a certain day, although the jailer has no distinct recollection of the fact independently of the record. White v. United States, 164 U. S. 100, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 38, 41: 365 Cited in Rollins v. Rio Grande County, 33 C. L. S. Dig.-183 C. A. 184, 62 U. S. App. 255, 90 Fed. 579Lake County v. Keene Five-Cents Sav. Bank, 47 C. C. A. 469, 108 Fed. 509-Goodrich v. Senate, 92 Me. 251, 42 Atl. 409. 1099. A record kept by a person employed by the United States signal service is admissible in evidence to prove facts stated therein, although there is no statute expressly authorizing the admission of such a record as proof. It is not a private entry or memorandum. It is kept by a person whose public duty it is to record truly the facts stated in it. Sections 221 and 222 of the Revised Statutes require meteorological observations to be taken at the military stations in the interior of the continent, and at other points in the states and territories, for giving notice of the approach and force of storms. The Secretary of War is also required to provide in the system of observations and reports in charge of the chief signal officer of the army for such stations, reports, and signals as may be found necessary for the benefit of agriculture and commercial interests. Under these acts a system has been established and' records kept which come within the rule admitting in evidence "official registers or records kept by persons in public office, in which they are required, either by statute or by the nature of their office, to write down particular transactions occurring in the course of their public duties or under their personal observation." Evanston v. Gunn, 99 U. S. 660, 25: 306 Cited in White v. United States, 164 U. S. 104, 41 L .ed. 366, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 38Daly v. Webster. 4 C. C. A. 19, 1 U. S. App. 573, 56 Fed. 486-Standard Elevator Co. v. Crane Elevator Co. 22 C. C. A. 572, 46 U. S. App. 411, 76 Fed. 790-Rollins v. Rio Grande County, 33 C. C. A. 184, 62 U. S. App. 255, 90 Fed. 579-Lake County v. Keene Five-Cents Sav. Bank, 47 C. C. A. 469, 108 Fed. 509-Murray v. Supreme Lodge, N. E. O. of P. 74 Conn. 719, 52 Atl. 722United States v. Cross, 9 Mackey, 381Prigg v. Lansburgh, 5 App. D. C. 36-National Union v. Thomas, 10 App. D. C. 291United States v. Cross, 20 D. C. 381-Birmingham v. Pettit, 21 D. C. 213-Chicago & N. W. R. Co v. Trayes, 17 Ill. App. 140Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. Zapp, 110 Ill. App. 556-Goodrich v. Senate, 92 Me. 251, 42 Atl. 409-Redhing v. Central R. Co. 68 N. J. L. 646, 54 Atl. 431-Scott V. Astoria & C. River R. Co. 43 Or. 33, 62 L.R.A. 547, 99 Am. St. Rep. 710, 72 Pac. 594-Nolt v. Crow, 22 Pa. Super. Ct. 119-State v. Spaulding, 60 Vt. 234, 14 Atl. 769. Official letters. Probative Effect of, see infra, 2463. See also infra, 1377, 2042. 1100. Contemporaneous letters to Congress concerning his acts and duties, by a public agent resident abroad, and resolutions of Congress thereupon, are proper evidence, in an action against him for such acts, to show his public character; and the letters are admissible to show the original nature and complexion of the facts in controversy. Bingham v. Cabbot, 3 Dall. 19, 1: 491 Cited in Emma Silver Min. Co. v. Park, 14 Blatchf. 418, Fed. Cas. No. 4,467. 1101. In a suit by a marine against a commander, for illegal detention on board after the expiration of his term of enlistment, a letter of the commander to the Secretary of the Navy, relating to the circumstances of the enlistment, may be admitted as part of the res gesta, and also as official correspondence in respect to official matters. Wilkes v. Dinsman, 7 How. 89, 12: 618 1102. In an action by a marine against the commander of a squadron, for punishment alleged to have been maliciously inflicted, a letter from an officer of the squadron to the commander, concerning the temper and disposition of the marines, is admissible in evidence. Dinsman v. Wilkes, 13: 1036 12 How. 390, Cited in Cohn v. Saidel, 71 N. H. 564, 53 Atl. 800. 1103. Letters written by the quartermaster for authority to purchase oats, because, as was alleged therein, the contractor had failed to deliver the oats under his contract; and authority granted by the adjutant general to make such purchases; and the fact that they were made,-are not evidence of a demand upon the contractor, or of such default upon his part as to give the United States a cause of action against him and his sureties. United States v. Corwin, 129 32: 710 U. S. 381, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 318, Cited in Insurance Co. of N. A. v. Guardiola, 129 U. S. 643, 32 L. ed. 803, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 425. 1104. In an action against a collector for a return of duties paid under protest, where one question in issue was the propriety of the removal, by the collector, of a merchant appraiser, a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury directing such removal was inadmissible. The validity of the removal, as to third persons, depends upon the power of the collector in the premises, and this power depends upon the law, and is to be determined by the courts. Greely v. Thomp13: 397 son, 10 How. 225, Cited in Gibb v. Washington, McAll. 439, Fed. Cas. No. 5,380-United States v. Loeb, 99 Fed. 732-United States v. Beebe, 117 Fed. 677-Bruhl Bros. v. Wilson, 123 Fed. 961. 1105. Letters of counsel and the letters of one of the French and American claims commissioners are not competent evidence to show what claims were allowed by the judgment of a commission. Burthe v. Denis 133 U. S. 514, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 335, 33: 768 1106. Copies of official letters by the general land office commissioner, sworn to by the clerk in the office, acquainted with the facts, are evidence of his decisions, when written by him to parties interested. Coan v. Flagg, 123 U. S. 117, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 47. 31: 107 1107. A letter written by a referee in an action on a claim against the District of Columbia, to an assistant attorney in the Department of Justice, cannot be received in evidence as a referee's report on the case, when the letter was written by him in pursuance of his employment by the Attorney General of the United States, and not as referee. District of Columbia v. Talty, 182 45: 1207 U. S. 510, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 896, 1108. [A letter from the secretary of the land office of Pennsylvania to a deputy surveyor, stating that James Logan had agreed that A should have 500 acres at C, and requesting him to survey it to A, and a plot of survey made in pursuance thereof, not returned into office, but found in the papers of the deputy after his death, were admitted in evidence. Fothergill v. Stover 1:13] (Pa. Sup. Ct.) 1 Dall. 6, 1109. Certified copies from the Confederate archives office of official communications between high civil and military officers of the Confederate States are competent evidence to show that the Confederate authorities obtained possession of a vessel by purchase, and not by capture or by other forcible compulsory appropriation. Oakes v. United States, 174 U. S. 778. 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 864, and Treasury transcripts. 43: 1169 Probative Effect of, see infra, 24692476. Admissibility under Declaration upon Settled Account, see infra, 2647. Prejudicial Error in Admitting, see Appeal and Error, 5041. Withdrawal by Counsel for Government of Credits Relied on by Defendant, see Trial, 74. See also supra, 891; United States, 46. 1110. A certified transcript from the books of the Treasury is, by the express provision of the act of March 3, 1798, evidence against the defendant in a suit by the United States against a receiver of public moneys, to reWalton v. United cover the balance due. 6: 182 States, 9 Wheat. 651, Cited in Watkins v. United States, 9 Wall. 763, 19 L. ed. 822-Smythe v. United States, 188 U. S. 173. 47 L. ed. 431, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 279-Dennison v. United States, 25 Ct. Cl. 311-United States v. Eggleston, 4 Sawy. 201, Fed. Cas. No. 15, 027-United States T. Lent, 1 Paine, 422, Fed. Cas. No. 15.593United States v. Patterson, 91 Fed. 855. 1111. A transcript composed of items of account arising out of the official transac tions of the defendant with the Treasury Department, and founded upon his quarterly and other accounts rendered in pursuance of law and the instructions of the Secretary, is admissible under the act of March 3, 1797 (1 Stat. at L. 512, chap. 20) § 2, providing that in every case of delinquency, where a suit has been brought, a transcript from the books and proceedings of the Treasury, certified by the register, and authenticated under the seal of the Department, shall be admitted as evidence, upon which the court is authorized to give judg ment. Hoyt v. United States, 10 How. 109, 13: 348 Cited in United States v. Hodge, 13 How. 485, United States, 100 U. S. 11, 25 L. ed. 537United States v. Pinson (United States v. Morris) 102 U. S. 554, 26 L. ed. 228-United States v. Able, Fed. Cas. No. 14,417 United States v. Eggleston, 4 Sawy. 201, Fed. Cas. No. 15,027-United States v. Harrill, McAll. 251, Fed. Cas. No. 15,310United States v. Case, 49 Fed. 271—Johns v. State, 55 Md. 361. 1112. A certified transcript of the account of a postmaster is admissible on the trial of an indictment of his assistant postmaster for embezzling money-order funds. Faust v. United States, 163 U. S. 452, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1112, 41: 224 1113. In an action against the sureties upon the official bond of a public officer, a Treasury transcript of his account certified by the register of the Treasury and authenticated under the seal of the Department is admissible in evidence under the acts of Congress. Farrar v. United States, 5 Pet. 373, 8: 159 Cited in Sherwood v. Hill, 25 Mo. 396-VanSickel v. Buffalo County, 13 Neb. 119, 42 Am. Rep. 753, 13 N. W. 19-Clark v. Wilkin. son, 59 Wis. 550, 18 N. W. 481. 1118. In a suit against a person accountable for public money, a transcript from the books of the Treasury Department is evidence, and a copy of the bond sued on, when certified, may be annexed to such transcripts, and is entitled to the same degree of credit which would be due to the original. Bechtel v. United States, 101 U. S. 597, 25: 1019 1119. There are two kinds of transcripts which the statute authorized the proper officers of the Treasury to certify: (1) A transcript from the "books and proceedings of the Treasury;" (2) "copies of bonds, contracts, and other papers," etc., which remain on file and relate to the settlement. Smith v. United States, 5 Pet. 292, Cited in Harvey v. United States, 97 Fed. 455Bates v. Bank of Alabama, 2 Ala. 487. 8: 130 1120. In every Treasury account on which suit is brought, the law requires the credits to be stated as well as the debits. United States v. Jones, 8 Pet. 375, 8: 979 1121. The act of Congress, in making a transcript from the books and proceedings of the Treasury evidence, does not mean the statement of an account in gross, but a statement of the items, both of the debits and credits, as they were acted upon by the accounting officers of the department. United States v. Jones, 8 Pet. 375, Cited in United States v. Edwards, 1 McLean 468, Fed. Cas. No. 15,026-United States v Harrill, McAll. 248, Fed. Cas. No. 15,310 -United States v. Smith, 35 Fed. 492Harvey v. United States, 97 Fed. 455. 8: 979 1115. In an action by the United States upon the official bond of a tax collector a copy of the collector's receipts, certified by Treasury Department, of the accounts of a 1122. A transcript from the books of the the Treasury Department, has the same tax collector, is not rendered inadmissible force in evidence as the originals. United in evidence in an action on the collector's States v. Hunt, 105 U. S. 183, 26: 1037 1116. In a suit upon the bond of a purser in the Navy, a transcript from the books and proceedings of the Treasury Department, certified to by the fourth auditor and authenticated under the seal of the Treasury Department, affixed by the Secretary, is admissible in evidence. United States v. Bell, 111 U. S. 477, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 498, 28: 477 Cited in Moses v. United States, 166 U.S. 594, 41 L. ed. 1127, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 682-United States v. Lew Poy Dew, 119 Fed. 789. 1117. Treasury transcripts are admissible in evidence in an action upon a postmaster's bond, under express provision of the act of 1836 (5 Stat. at L. 81); and this, although the accuracy of the items is assailable on the ground that they do not contain statements of credits claimed by the postmaster and disallowed, or that the items charged in the accounts as balances of quarterly returns do not purport to be balances acknowledged by the postmaster, and are not supported by proper vouchers. United States 14: 231 Cited in United States v. Dumas, 149 U. S. 285, 37 L. ed. 736, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 872-Jaedicke v. United States, 29 C. C. A. 203, 56 U. S. App. 409, 85 Fed. 376-United States v. Harrill, McAll. 245, Fed. Cas. No. 15,310. v. Hodge. 13 How. 478. bond by the presence thereon of objectionable items, where these were separable from the remainder of the account by mere inspection. United States v. Hunt, 105 U. S. 183, 26: 1037 1123. Under the act of March 31, 1797, the transcript from the books of the Department, admissible in evidence against a revenue officer, should not be a garbled or mutilated statement, but should be complete. in itself, perfect for what it purports to represent, and give both sides of the account as the same stands upon the books; but the items may be briefer in form than the original entries. United States v. GausCited in United States v. Stone, 106 U. S. 529, sen, 19 Wall, 198, V. 22: 41 27 L. ed. 165. 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 287-Chadwick United States, 3 Fed. 755-Harvey v. United States, 38 C. C. A. 270, 97 Fed. 455United States v. Hart, 2 Ariz. 419, 19 Pac. 4-Ewing v. United States, 3 App. D. C. 358-Johns v. State, 55 Md. 361. 1124. Every transcript of account from the Treasury, which contains items of payments made to others on the authority of the person charged, should have annexed to it a duly certified copy of the instrument which authorized such payments. United States v. Jones, 8 Pet. 375, 8: 979 |