The New York herald., 1867-03-22
UuIrEp STATES SUPREME CUURT.

Oa,ot.I 0vIuieus-The OmciaI Bond Of Pest.
usssers-IiabHify thereon when Accruing-
Variance Between Pleading and Evidence.
TAs Usiad States plaintiff n e,vw ~ C1arls Ia
BorsM-In 70 the Circuit Court for the Southern
district or Alabama This OF several actions
brought against the suretes the ocai bond OF oliver
Beers postmaster at Mobile Alabama On the trial
below appears that Beers appointed to scs by the
President during the the Senate and received
commission bearing date In April ls4o 70 continue In
force until the end the sitting the Senate which
terminated on the S0th day OF September. 1850 also
appeared that Beers again nominated by the President
in April 1880 and that he oontinusd 70 act from the
early in 1853 The bond. however was given for the
nrse term while the default charged was during the
had been transmitted 70 Beers afssr approval BY the
department The question was whether the first bend
v,l be made TO apply 70 the second term Of offcs.
new trial ordered. On the second trial verdict
rendered for the plaintiff, which set aside by the
Court and on the third trial the verdict the
PENDANT under the instructions OF the Court that IL the
bond given IN evidence, was not approved until the
15th OF July 1850 (which after the date Of certain
of the offences charged then the defendant entitled
20 verdict. Tho thereupon here, and the
principal assignment OF error is this ruling OF the court
the government claiming hat the time OF making the
bond was laid under videlic 1t was not necessary TO
prove Il r. opened.
tonIhs case has been in this court before, and Is
ported in 10 Howard, 70 It then decided that the
from the timc Of its acceptance by tho Postmaster GEN.
sal and from its date; and also that the term Of
and with the advice and consent the Senate
day OF that acceptance The having been remtted
ne C6cu. court ior new trial. TIA .nas court 9 arscsea
variance between the bond offered in evidence and tho
sne set out In the pleadnss The variance s supposed
70 have reference the the bond took effect II Is
claimed that the bond is described being dated and
taking effect on the lst day Of July 1850 whereas the
evidence showed that while II bore that its face
not approved by the Postmaster General until
nftssnth day Of that month, and, therefore, un-
como the bond Of Of defendant until Ill the he last M
mentioned date. Upon an examination Of the
Ie 20 IL on
July L 1850 the defendant by his certain writing ob
gstory. acknowledged himself indebted to the plaintiff
" the sum OF 500 COO This OF declaring gives
no date TO the bond and merely gives the time when
defendant became bound by il 70 the plaintiff Tho rule
be proved with precision but iha very large departure
nom the tme quantity &c, alleged is allowable is
Weu understood, and Is 50 much matter OF every day
tsactce that citation of authorities to sustain It IS
oecessary An Indictment charging prisoner with
on tne nrss dsy of july would be sustained ny
proving murder committed on the fifteenth Of that
month. Hcw much more reasonable that contract
alleged to have been made the rs may be supported
ny evidence of the contract made the fifteenth
sf the month. But II IS also rule Of evidence that
when words used in declaration descriptive Of the
instrument declared on, 1t must when offered in evil
dencc, conform strictly to that description; and We
ooncede that it is alleged part Of the description OF
guch instrument that 1, bears such date, 10
dated Of such a day, that instrument will be
admissible which does bear that 1t said by
counsel that this declaration gives such description VI
che date OF the bond A careful Examination Of n how
ever, shows attempt at such description and merely
3he usual necessary allegation Of the time when the
tract was made IT. however. counsel is correct in his
construction Of the declaration. still theresis variance
because tho bond read evidence actually bears the date
which II Is claimed that the declaration ascrbes It,
and therefore conforms the supposed description
II Is no variance, however from the substance of the
issue to show that though dated the 1s of July IL took
effect only on the 18Th, because have shown, the
precise time when the contract became obligatory need
pleadngs subsequent to the declaration it became
cary TO prove that the contract became obligatory the
very aay ALLEGED IS equally unsnccessiui The defend
senber 80 his principal deputy Postmaster under
appointment not confirmed by the Senate, and
that tho bond sued was applicable TO this
appointment and to this period alone; and that during
that time default breach OF its condition occurred
The replication is that OH the day Of the date of the
bond, aud from thence forward for four years. Beers
the deputy Postmaster, held under the appointment
confirmed by Senate and that the bond covered his
transactions during that tme TO this defendant re-
Joined that Beers was not Postmaster under the ap-
pontment set forth in the replication but under the
0rst-a Presidential appointment and that the bond
covered only tho time mentioned in the Plea As
proved on the trial that the bond was accepted on tho
a6th July $780, IL follows under the former decision of
Shis court that from that time forth the bond covered
bis liability and that under the last appointment
The plea OF the defendant fails therefore, except TO
ahe time between the first and fifteenth July. II
e not perceived how the precise day when the
ths and the court by refusing permit any breach
DO proved within those fifteen days. would have fully
% tho legal effect OF the bond and of them describe
bond different from the offered In evidence. After
ams bnanr was material ,hs, NO breach is Should s
proved before thai me but tho proof which fixed that
date was no variance from any pleading Of the plaintiff
from substance Of any issue made in the
As these principles require reversal OF the Is
not deemed necessary 10 notice tho other exceptions,
&rial
This opinion dsposcs of the Of the United States
Stewart which Is identical with this except In the
name OF the defendant
Omcial Opauiou-The Public LauAs-spanish
Grants tho Lower NIississippi and their
Conarmafien by the United States-The Oni-
eial Decisions Of Registers and Receivers
Evidence Of Title.
7ks United Ssoses Plaintiff n Error, James AcMas-
srs, ct 0Ths facts IN the cass have been previously
reported In the HEaAID The opinion Of the Court which
fOiiows vii, sufficiently recapitulate shem:-
! By the Court (Mr. Justice Nelson delivering the
spinion-This wrft error By the Circuit Court OF
Unitcd States Sor the Eastern district OF Louisiana
THIS suit brought in tho below by the United
Beatss possession Of of land situate in
he parish Of 81 Bernard about ten mes below the city
Of New Oreans the side OF the river Mississippi
and between that rivsr and Lake Borgne.
10: ao,endAuS n SET up two grounds S o. dclsncol
November 1761; and 2, that the grant confirmed
. = s.d Phinpon BY act Of Congress March 1855
from whom the defendants derive their titles
The spanish grant was produced the trial from the
registers once in New Orleans where these ancient
cities deposited, and ID found In the record
The Governor In making tho grants recites: Consd.
erng the foregoing proceedings made by the Segundo
Ayundante OF this place. LOUIS Andry who appoint
Cd to MAKO survey put Du Marie Le COMPETE In pos
session OF the vacant land which lies n
extremity the forty arpents depth Of the plantation
belonging 10 Bachemin, Corbn, vorson and Portugas,
and consists OF fourteen arpents m 'front.' composing the
sad pautatons until reaches Lake Bogne; and nnd
ang that said proceedings agreeaby order
OF survey and to the grants Of the above parties
Who arc not injured nay who have assonted thereto &c
Now therefore, &C. we do by these presents grant
10 Marie lie Compte the above named fourteen
Arpens front from the forty pents depth owned by
che said Bachemin &C. TO the aforesaid lake. following
the directions which the boundary lines Of the
said Bachemin, &C, run In order that
she may dispose Of and enjoy the same, &c There
obscurity In the language Of the grant, and II IL
opea tor construction there ground for the inter-
rI~A fc~ hx,t