This statute proceeds upon the theory that the officers of the United States shall make up 212*] the account *of every revenue officer, that it shall adjust the same on its books, and that the account thus stated and adjusted shall stand as and for the sum for which such officer shall be liable to the Government. This, no doubt, is subject to correction by such competent evidence as may be produced. In other words, the statement is prima facie evidence only, not absolute and conclusive. In furtherance of this idea it is the duty of the Comptroller at once to institute suit for the recovery of the balance thus found and stated. A second result, and one indispensable to the existence of the theory, is, that the books shall be evidence of the truth of the amounts thus stated and declared to be due to the United States. The Act, therefore, provides that a transcript from these books and proceedings shall be admitted in evidence, and that, thereupon, the court is authorized to proceed to judgment and execution. In the present case "copies of the report of the first auditor," numbered respectively 5,688, etc., and eight in number, were offered in evidence. The bill of exceptions states that no objection was made to the manner in which they were certified. The suggestion that the Act is applicable to a defaulting principal only, and not to a surety, is not pressed and need not be considered. The objection that the reports were frag | condensed when carried to a ledger account, and the results of many items or of some considerable period of time, may be stated in a briefer form than they stood upon the original entries. The means of particular information are open to either party. We see no objection on this ground to the evidence now presented, and are of the opinion that there was error in its exclusion. There was error also in excluding the evidence of the accounts rendered by Barrett, the principal. They seem to be complete, not partial or fragmentary, as alleged, and being statements made by him to the Government in the performance of his official duty, they are evidence against the party making them not only, but his sureties as well, and against third persons in privity with him. The authorities place the rule upon the grounds: 1, that the entries made are against the interest of the party mak-, ing them; and 2, that a surety is bound by the acts and declarations of his principal, [*214 being within the scope of the business, as a part of the res gesta. 1 Phil. Ev., 4th Am. ed., p. 307, and note, also, pp. 525, 526; Plaxton v. Dare, 10 Barn. & C., 17; Middleton v. Melton, 10 Barn. & C., 317. The judgment must be reversed and a new trial had. mentary and incomplete is not sustained by the THE WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COM PANY, Plff. in Err., v. CHARLES EYSER. (See S. C., 19 Wall., 419-433.) Supersedeas bond-writ of error, when filed. facts. As presented in the record each report is complete and perfect in itself. Each report contains all upon the subject during the time that it purports to represent. In the aggregate they cover the whole period of Barrett's service. The statute says that a transcript from the books shall be admitted as evidence. A transeript or a transcribing is substantially a copy. A copy from the books, and not of the books, shall be admissible in evidence. An extract from the books, a portion of the books, when authenticated to be a copy, may be given in evidence. While a garbled statement is not evidence, or a mutilated statement, wherein the debits shall be presented and the credits suppressed, or perhaps a statement of results Submitted Dec. 12, 1873. Decided Dec. 15, 1873. 213*] *only, it still seems to be clear that it is not necessary that every account with an indi 1. Under the 11th section of the Act of June 1, 1872, the supersedeas bond may be executed within sixty days after the rendition of the judgment, and later, with the permission of the designated judge. before, or simultaneously with, the filing of the 2. The writ of error may be served at any time bond. [No. 665.] vidual, and all of every account, shall be tran- IN ERROR to the Supreme Court of the Ter scribed as a condition of the admissibility of any one account. The statement presented 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. Gratiot v. U. S., 15 Pet., 356, 370; Hoyt v. U. S., 10 How., 109, 132; U. S. v. Eckford, 1 How., 250. Nor is the objection, that the reports charge Barrett with gross sums and with balances without giving details, sustained by the facts. The reports are made up with much particularity, and give the items on each side of the account. It is not a case of a certificate of balances merely. We are not authorized, however, to regulate the manner in which the departments shall keep their books, or to prescribe the minuteness of the detail. The items in these reports are manifestly made up from statements and details of the daily business furnished by the collector. They are necessarily ritory of Colorado. The case is stated by the court. Mr. Justice Swayne delivered the opinion of the court: This is an application for a writ of supersedeas or an order, to the Supreme Court of Colorado Territory, and to the District Court of the First Judicial District in and for the County of Arapaho, in that Territory, commanding that further proceedings *upon the judgment [*426 in this case be stayed pending the writ of error whereby the judgment was brought into this court for review. The judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the Territory on the 6th of September, 1873. On the 8th of October following, the defendant sued out a writ of error returnable to this court. It was duly served 43 Act of Sept. 4, 1841, ch. 16 (5 Stat. 455, 297 146 222 .... Act of July 2, 1884 (13 Stat. 365).. 753 512, 540 Act of May 15, 1856, ch. 28 Act of June 3, 1856, ch. 43 (11 Stat. 20) Act of June 3, 1856, ch. 44 814 Act of 1860 (12 Stat. 85) 202 Act of Jan. 29, 1861, ch. 20 (12 Stat. 126) 645 Act of July 13, 1861, ch. 3 (12 Stat. 257) 531, 534 (12 Stat. 319, Act of Feb. 14, 1857.. 628 742 .81, 354, 442, 479, 652, 845 1866, ch. 200 (14 Stat. 173) 403 1866, ch. 208 (14 Stat. 193 .341, 737, 738 (14 Stat. 244) 176 (14 Stat. 253) 416 (14 Stat. 300) 876 (14 Stat. 306) 69, 477, 527 Act of July 28, 1866, ch. 310 (14 Stat. 344) 159 Act of Feb. 5, 1867, ch. 28 (14 Stat. 365) 436, 446, 447, 448, 590, 654 Resolution Feb. 28, 1867, No. 30 (14 Stat. 569) Act of March 2, 1867, ch. 167 (14 Stat. 535) 738 .799, 803 Act of Aug. 6, 1861, ch. 60 47 Act of July 1, 1862 (12 Stat. 489).. 750 Stat. 517-536)....152, 154, 274, 276, 449, 517, 521, 536, 544, 573, 577, 637, 638, 686, 690, 757 Act of March 2, 1867, ch. 184 (14 Stat. 544) 202 Act of March 2, 1867, ch. 196 (14 Stat. 558) 68, 163, 331 Proclamation of Sept. 7, 1867 (15 Stat. 700) 742 Act of Feb. 10, 1868, ch. 7 (15 Stat. 34) 193 Act of June 25, 1868, ch. 71 (15 Stat. 75) 691, 773 Act of June 25, 1868, ch. 72 (15 Stat. 77) 341 Act of July 20, 1868, ch. 186 (15 Stat. 125, 129). .209, 343, 474, 475 Act of March 3, 1869 (15 Stat. 406). 882 Act of May 31, 1870, ch. 114 (16 Stat. 141) 442 Act of July 7, 1870, ch. 210 (16 Stat. 189) 395 Act of July 8, 1870, ch. 203 (16 Stat. 206215) Act of July 8, 1870, ch. 230 (16 Stat. 206) 533 742 Act of April 19, 1864, ch. 59 (13 Stat. 47) 644 Act of June 1, 1872, ch. 255 (17 Stat. 196) 653 691 814 814 813 628 629 630 630 |