Court Opinion

ID: 8838930
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-26 16:33:57.961414+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:05:08.959993
License: Public Domain

Colt, J.
I concur in the conclusions of Judge Nelson, in this case. The question of Hill’s accountability to the United States for moneys alleged to have been earned by him as clerk of the district court in naturalization cases was determined by this court and by the supreme court in the case. of U. S. v. Hill, reported in 25 Fed. Rep. 375, and 120 U. S. 169, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 510. In that case it was contended that Hill, as clerk of the district court, had received certain moneys in naturalization cases for which he should account to the United States in bis emolument returns, and especially that he should account to the extent of his earnings in such cases under the fee bill of 1853, but the supreme court decided that Hill had received no moneys in naturalization cases to be accounted for in his emolument returns, and that the fee bill was not applicable to such cases. In the present case the defense is made to the plaintiff’s claim that he has earned certain fees in naturalization cases which he has not included in his emolument returns. As the supreme court has decided that the fee bill is not applicable to naturalization cases, the offer of proof that Hill had performed certain acts, alleged or claimed as under the fee bill, by which he earned emoluments in such cases, was properly rejected, and the request for rulings, in effect, that Hill is accountable for earnings in naturalization cases under the fee bill, was properly denied. Judgment for plaintiff.