Opinion ID: 85889
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The court erred in its decision on the second point above stated——

Text: 32 1st. The account was one entire document, and the defendant, if he elected to rely on any part thereof, was bound, by the general rules of evidence, to take the whole as evidence, so far as it was pertinent to the subject matter of the suit. 33 2d. There is the more reason for adhering to the general rule in this case, because the account was stated by a public officer, to whom, by law, and by the contract of the parties, the duty of settling the accounts in question was to be referred. 34 The Attorney-General argued, that the treasury statement exhibited and read in evidence on the trial of the cause, ought to have been admitted as prima facie evidence of the balance due to the United States. Large sums were admitted to have been received by Orr; and this was sufficient to authorise the admission of other items in the accounts, not included in those sums. These items were charges, in some instances, for sums paid on warrants drawn in favour of the contractor, and in others, for sums paid also on warrants, in favour of other persons under his authority. 35 He cited the acts of congress relative to the settlement of public accounts. Act of 1792, 2 Laws U. S. 303; Act of 1797, 2 Laws U. S. 594; Act of 1795, 2 Laws U. S. 502; Act of July 16, 1798, 3 Laws U. S. 114; Act of 3 March 1817, 6 Laws U. S. 36 By the act of 1817, all accounts for army supplies are to be settled at the treasury department, and the third auditor is particularly charged with the settlement of army accounts. This act refers to the law of 1799, and adopts it as applying to accounts to be settled by the third auditor; and the law of 1797 makes the books and proceedings of the treasury evidence. 37 The auditor had a right to charge the defendant's intestate for warrants drawn in favour of other persons on his contract. He was bound, and had authority to inquire, whether the advances were made on the contract, and by his order. He must have had evidence of the money having been drawn by such order. 38 The transcript was certainly evidence, and was so admitted; and the whole question in the court below was as to the effect of that evidence. If it was evidence of money paid to Orr himself, it must be evidence of money paid to others by his order. 39 The vouchers for the payment to Richard Smith, of nineteen thousand one hundred and forty-nine dollars and one cent, must have been left in the office, and have been the authority on which the payment is made. The warrant for the account must have shown the authority by which the money was paid, and this was apparent upon it, viz. the orders in favour of Richard Smith and others. 40 It could not have been the exclusive object of the act of congress making the transcript evidence to supersede the necessity of producing the original books. 41 The whole sums charged in the account growing out of the warrants, stand on the same ground, and come within the ordinary official action of the auditor; and the whole account, thus entered, should have been admitted as proved, prima facie. 42 The Attorney-General referred to the case of the United States v. Buford, 3 Peters 12, and contended that the principles laid down by the court in that case had no application to the present question. 43 Upon the second exception, it was argued, that the permission to use a part of the account in his favour, by the defendant, and yet to deny that the other parts of the same account were evidence against him, was contrary to the established rules of evidence. Cited: 1 Wash. C. C. R. 344; Bell v. Davidson, 3 Wash. C. C. R. 328. The whole transcript was one paper, and all its contents should have been taken together. Mr Coxe and Mr Jones, contra: 44 The principles involved in this case are of general importance. In the cases of The United States v. Fillebrown, 7 Peters 28; The United States v. M'Daniel, 7 Peters 1, and The United States v. Ripley, 7 Peters 18, the same questions were under examination. The decisions of the court in these cases are decisive upon the matters now presented for their consideration. 45 The transcript was admitted as competent evidence, but the question was as to the effect of the evidence: what did it prove? The act of congress of 1797 makes the treasury transcripts evidence; but this was for the purpose, only, of substituting the transcripts for the original books and accounts of the treasury. 46 The books, if produced, would only be evidence of the money paid on the warrant, which is very special; and the receipt is given on the warrant, which receipt authorises the charge against the party to whom the money was paid. But it furnishes no evidence to charge any other person. The authority given by Orr to some person to receive money, is not a proceeding at the treasury, or to be proved by a transcript. Cited: The United States v. Buford, 3 Peters 29, 6 Peters 172, 201; also, the case of Randolph, decided by Mr Chief Justice Marshall and Judge Barbour, in Virginia, in 1833. 47 The balance of the account transferred from the books of the second auditor, cannot be proved by its entry in the transcript. The transcript of the account should have been produced, and it could be seen from it, which part of the sum claimed as the balance, was proved by it. Its introduction in this form as an item of debit can have no effect. 48 As to the second exception. The general rule of evidence which obliges a party who introduces a piece of evidence, to take the whole together, is distinguishable from the rule which sanctions the claim of the defendant to the credits in the account, without admitting the debits. In this case, the plaintiff introduced the account. It contained the admissions of the United States, that the defendant was entitled to certain credits. They had been established by vouchers, which were retained by the treasury department. The defendant had a right to call upon the treasury department for a list of these credits, without their being connected with an account containing charges against him. They are not conditional credits, or such as the United States allowed in the event of the debits being admitted. They are independent and absolute charges against the United States, and have no other connection with the debits against the defendant, than that they arose out of the same transaction. 49 The exception allowed by Judge Washington, in the circuit court of Pennsylvania, (Bell v. Davidson, 3 Wash. C. C. R. 328) was the principle claimed for the defendant. 50