Case: Robert L. Bradley's administrator, appellant, v. The United States, appellees
Abbreviation: Bradley's v. United States
Decision Date: 1882-01-16
Docket Number: 
Citation: 17 Ct. Cl. 428
Volume: 17
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: Robert L. Bradley’s administrator, appellant, v. The United States, appellees.
Judges: 
Pages: 428–429

Head Matter:
(12 C. Cls. R., 578; 104 U. S. R., 442.)
Robert L. Bradley’s administrator, appellant, v. The United States, appellees.
On the claimant’s Appeal.
Bradley, without knowledge of speeifie frauds, informs the collector of New Orleans that frauds are being committed in the custom-house on weights and classification of sugars. The collector employs him to ferret them out. About the same time the naval officer suspects an importer and orders that his sugars be not withdrawn. He then appoints Bradley as clerk to make an examination and “ work up the sugar oases.” Bradley procures samples and brings them to the naval officer. A seizure is made in the presence of the naval officer and of Bradley. The sugars are libelled and forfeited. The Seeretary of the Treasury decides that there was no informer or seizing-officer, and distributes the proceeds, one-half to the United States, one-half to the collector, surveyor, and naval officer.
The court below decides that an informer within the meaning of the Act M March, 1867 (14 Stat. L., 546), is one who gives the first information in consequence of which a seizure is made and a forfeiture consummated. Suspicions, rumors, and general information that fraud is practiced in the importation of an article do not constitute such information.
Judgment for defendants. The claimant appeals.
The judgment is affirmed.
The Reporters’ statement of tbe case:
Pending tbe trial in tbe conrt below tbe claimant filed tbe following motion:
And now, on tbe 14tb day of May, 1877, comes tbe claimant, by bis solicitor, and moves the conrt to suppress the depositions of Charles Dillingham, tbe naval officer, and Lionel A. Sheldon, a surety on bis bond of indemnity, given to tbe Secretary of tbe Treasury, on tbe ground that these witnesses are interested in tbe event of this suit, and that their depositions were nottaken in the manner pointed out in tbe statutes. (Revised Statutes, sections 1079 and 1080.)
Upon tbe foregoing motion the court made tbe following ruling, to wit:
It appearing that tbe above-named deponents are not claim ants iu this action, nor persons from or through whom the claimant derives his title, claim, or right against the United States, nor persons interested in such title, claim, or right, and are not offered as witnesses in supporting the same, but are called by the defendants, and their depositions are offered to defeat the claim, the foregoing motion is overruled.
Upon the hearing on appeal the claimant admitted that if the ruling of the court below on the above motion was sustained its decision iras correct, and the opinion of the Supreme Court goes only to that point and sustains the ruling.

Opinion:
The Chief Justice
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, January 16, 1882.