Case: PAUL RAVESIES v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Ravesies v. United States
Decision Date: 1888-05-07
Docket Number: No. 15319
Citation: 23 Ct. Cl. 299
Volume: 23
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: PAUL RAVESIES v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Pages: 299–302

Head Matter:
PAUL RAVESIES v. THE UNITED STATES.
[No. 15319.
Decided May 7, 1888.]
On the Proofs.
A commissioner returns copies of process to the clerk, and charges fees therefor, hut does not charge for returning the originals. He also prepares affidavits on which to ground complaints in cases coming before him, the district attorney having required such affidavits before he would approve a warrant of arrest.
I. It is no part of the ministerial or judicial service of a commissioner to prepare an affidavit to facilitate the discharge of the duty of the district attorney.
II. A fee for copies of process under Revised Statutes, § 1014, is allowable where it appears that no charge was made for returning the originals to the clerk.
The Reporters’ statement of the case:
The following are the facts as found by the court:
I. The claimant, Paul Ravesies, has been a commissioner of the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of Alabama from 1873 to the present time. The claimant’s accounts for fees in hearing and deciding on criminal charges at the rate of $5 a day during the years 1883,1884, and 1885, verified by his oath, were presented to said court in the presence of the district attorney, and an order approving the same was duly entered of record. The accounts thus approved were presented to the accounting officers of the Treasury. Payment for eighteen days, charged in said account at $5 a day, was refused. On these days the proceedings before the commissioner consisted of an entry of the complaint, an arraignment and plea of the person charged, the granting of a continuance on motion of one of the parties, fixing the amount of bail, and, if tendered, passing upon the sufficiency thereof, and, if not tend ered, committing the defendant. No witnesses were heard om the days charged for in this account.
II. The claimant, as commissioner, returned copies of the-process against all defendants held by him for trial into the-office of the clerk of the circuit or district cohrt of the United States for the southern district of Alabama, and charged fees therefor at the rate of 15 cents per folio, and his account for fees in so doing, at said rate, from July 1,1885, to June 30, 1886, were approved by said circuit court$ said fees, amounting to $45.60, were disallowed by the-accounting officers of the Treasury. The claimant was not allowed for returning the originals under the order of court, except for making the transcript as set forth in Finding III. The said, copies so returned amounted' to the sum of $45.60, estimating them at the rate of 15 cents per folio.
III. During the period covered by this claim an order of said circuit court- was in force, made at the request of the Depart-menr of Justice, requiring, among other things, that—
“After the close of each examination the commissioner shall forward to the clerk of the United States circuit court for the-proper district all the papers in the case, with a proper transcript of the proceedings, in which he shall schedule thé papers forwarded (p. 36).”
In pursuance of this order the claimant made and certified transcripts of proceedings in all cases coming before him as commissioner, wherein the parties were held to bail from September 9,1882, to July 23, 1885, each of said transcripts containing three folios, for which he charged at the rate of 15 cents a folio, amounting in the aggregate to $97.2(3. His accounts for services for so doing were presented to said circuit court and approved, but have never been presented to the accounting officers of the Treasury. A subsequent account of the same character, and computed at the same rate, and similarly approved, amounting to $13.35, was presented to said accounting officers and disallowed. Said services aggregate-the sum of $110.55, and are for services such as are described above, at the rate of 15 cents per folio. The services charged for in the account of $13.35 were performed, and amounted to-, said amount charged for at the rate of the account for $97.20»
IY. The claimant, as commissioner, also prepared affidavits-on which to ground complaints in cases coming before him as- commissioner. These affidavits was what the witness swore to of his own personal knowledge, while the complaint only contained information to the best of Ms belief besides personal knowledge, and was intended to show the district attorney what proof he could rely upon before a jury. The district attorney required these affidavits to be sho.wn to him before be would approve a warrant of arrest; and .said affidavits were intended to aid the United States district attorney in the discharge of his duties, giving him a history of the case. In some cases more than one affidavit was made, but the claimant, in his accounts, charges for but one, in each case. They varied in length, but averaged as much as four folios. The claimant charged for drawing said affidavits from September 9,1882, to December 23,1885, each affidavit, four folios, at 15 cents a folio, CO cents; one oath, 10 cents; and filing, 10 cents; making a total in each case of 80 cents, and a total for all said affidavits •of $340.80. His account' for drawing the said affidavits was presented to the said United States circuit court and approved, but has never been presented to the accounting officers of the Treasury. A similar item, computed at the same rate, and likewise approved, for subsequent service, amounting to $12.80, was presented to the accounting officers of the Treasury and •disallowed. The claimant prepared affidavits as aforesaid, which, if computed by the rule above stated, would amount in the aggregate to the sum of $353.60. These affidavits were in addition to the one on which the warrant was issued.
V. Said court also adopted the following rule at the request •of the Department of Justice:
“ It is further ordered by the court that at the end of each month, or within five days thereafter, each commissioner shall make out and forward to the clerk of the United States circuit ■court for the proper district a report in duplicate of all cases instituted or examined during the month, one for the clerk of the court¡ one for the Attorney-General, and a separate report of internal-revenue cases instituted or examined for the Commissioner of Internal Eevenue. The reports to be made upon such forms as shall be prescribed and furnished by the Department of Justice, and they shall give a full abstract of the pro■ceedings in each case.”
The claimant made out and forwarded duplicate reports, besides the separate report of internal-revenue cases, as required by this rule. It took about one hundred written words to give the required abstract of the proceedings ~n each case,, making, for the duplicate reports, two hundred written words for each case. In his accounts for 1883, 1884, and 1885 the claimant charged 30 cents a case for these two reports, being at the rate of 15 cents a folio for two folios in each case, but the accounting officers reduced to half a folio in each case. The disallowances thus made amounted to $165.15.
Mr. George A. King for the claimant.
Mr. F. P. Dewees (with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Howard) for the defendants.

Opinion:
Weldon, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court :
The claim in this case consists of five items, as set forth in the findings. The conclusions of the court allow items 1, 2,3, and 5, but disallow item 4. Item 4 embraces a class of service not provided for by law. It is no part of the ministerial or judicial service of a commissioner to prepare an affidavit to facilitate the discharge of the duty of the district attorney. The commissioner is presumed to act judicially, and it is no part.of his duty to prepare for the successful prosecution of the case. The item of $45.60 for copies of process under section 10.14, Revised Statutes, is allowed in this case, as it appears that no charge was made for returning, the originals to the clerk under the order set forth in Finding III.
The claimant is allowed but one fee for the same service in substance; and as he is not allowed for returning the original papers, if he makes copies under the requirements of section 1014 he is allowed for- that service. A commissioner has a right to do in the discharge of his official duty whatever the la w requires, and is entitled to charge whatever the law allows for such service; and the fact that he does something else, amounting in substance to the same thing, if for the latter service he gets no pay he will not be deprived of his compensation for what the law requires him to do.
It is the judgment of the court that the claimant recover the sum of $411.30.