New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1867-12-13
THE OFFICIAL DUTIES OF A PURsER IN THE
NAVY.

Tho case of Jasper Strong, plaintiff in orrOT
against The United States up from the Southern
District Of Florida where the United States District
Court bad indicted Strong In $4,000 security the
official bond Vi Dudley Walker, Turser in the United
states Navy. At tho final settlement the Government
owed Walker about s21OOO The testimony showed that
Walker was stationed at the Pensacola Navy ard and
that for a period Of about nine months. FROM April 10,
is0 thore 10 Navy Agent nc that place, and that
daring tiHt time, Walker made. under authority
Of tho Navy Department., certain disbursements,
which would have been made By the Navy Agent,
there HAD been such an oliver at that place.
Such dShur ments are inclnded In bis accounts as
ssuied by tie accounting officers, aud We're ia some
hetanccs allowed 10 Walker ~ Purser ana Navy Agent
end IN otlcis Pur>er and Acting Navy Agent, willie
scae were suspended and others again, dissolved Tine
Court charged the jury IN substance that Tie Navy De
pertinent, in requiring Walker to perform duties when
WoRd have been performed by Navy Agent had there
0n scR an oieer al Pensacola dd not constitute aim
ANAVy Agent, nor require OF MIN the performance OF du'
hes ast default Ia which hs sureties had not under
tGh 20 plOteSt Inc Government OoutsS iSr Iie l'l
uH IN error (deienddht beOw requested the Court 20
euai@ that The buud Was only Intended 10 cover the
9aNCs OF Walgcr PurSer, and that strong was not
thereon responsible for any defalcation OF Walker a.
Navy Agent; also, the juIy must carefully examine the
I've dh rCut accounts ana determine what sums any,
claimed by tn United states and for which Walker was
In default rvicrablo 10 his receipts ana disbursements
- ihS' " ana In Icr tht the burden Oi PROOF hes upon
the nt ~ 10 show 10 the satisfaction OF the jury that
srirnet, which, as PurSer, he failed to GIsbnrse or
soodnt for ana, finally II they and the account Pur
lEoilc Tor them determine how OF the alleged
d nteduss accrued VILE Walker was acting in he ca
pney 0i dter only then they must find for the defend
az. The Court rCfErt5 TO charge and the defendant
below, executing thereto appealed 10 the u g. Supreme
Court CuHtnug that the duties aud responsibilities
EtnE e. the Two offices OF Purser and Navy Agent
distinct and separate ana that thls fact Is manifest by
tho CtcatMn Of the two different offices, by
the 81 .crenoe OF pay and emolument, and
by tho tenure Of Office enc being Tor four
Years and the other for lie. IL is manifest the law did
contemplate the Fursers bond covering default
navy agents district, hccanse by distinct and later
enactment, aforementioned, specific security was re-
CURED foI navy agents acts In many branches Of
ise naval and military service; speclhc duties oil s9oo
cnate OCers not declared by statute but are hNed
BY general orders and regulations, promulgated by TIE
President head of department and having the force
OF law wmle She regulation - mrepealed Sucl reguLt
the Ufcers action, prescribe is 0ihca Gu
ties mark the limits Of his responsibility, and measure
The extent OF The Obligation incurred by Ills surete thus
0ebncd ana prescribed ale the duties vi he Fntsr III tne
navy The Government lnantas the theory OF the court
N its charge TO the jury.