Case: John M. Ashfield v. The United States
Abbreviation: Ashfield v. United States
Decision Date: 1867-12
Docket Number: 
Citation: 3 Ct. Cl. 263
Volume: 3
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: John M. Ashfield v. The United States.
Judges: 
Pages: 263–265

Head Matter:
John M. Ashfield v. The United States.
On the Proofs.
The claimant is a watchman on the Smithsonian grounds in the city of Washington, being appointed by ¿he Commissioner of Public Buildings. The First Comptroller refuses to him the tioenty per centum additional compensation given to all civil officers and employees by the joint resolution of February 22, 1867.
The construction given to the joint resolution of February 22,1867, (14 Stat. L., p. 569,) by the Court of Claims, in the case of James Stone, (ante, p. 260,) is applicable to and governs the case of a watchman appointed by the Commissioner of Public Buildings.
Mr. B. B. French and Mr. J. Daniels for claimant:
The petitioner claims that he is entitled, under the joint resolution of Congress “ giving additional compensation to certain employes in the civil service of the United States,” approved February 28, 1867, to the 20 per centum on his salary of $1,080 per annum, as fixed by law, inasmuch as said resolution provides that “ employes ” in certain departments, and in “ the office of the Commissioner of Public Buildings,” shall be allowed “ an additional compensation of 20 per centum on their respective salaries, as fixed by law, for one year from and after the 30th day of June, 1866.
The said Ashfield being a watchman in the Smithsonian grounds, (a portion of reservation No. 2,) being under the care and control of the Commissioner of Public Buildings, was an employé in the office of said Commissioner. Application was made to the First Comptroller for the 20 per centum, who decided that the petitioner was not entitled to it under the resolution.
The petitioner was appointed a watchman under the joint resolution of Congress “authorizing the Commissioner of Public Buildings to employ three additional watchmen in the Smithsonian grounds,” approved July 26, 1866. (14 Stat. L., p. 365.)
' The appropriation to pay these watchmen at the rate of $825 each per annum, is contained in the deficiency act, approved December 20, 1866. (14 Stat. L„ p. 374.)
And the next clause in said act authorizes the Commissioner of Public Buildings to add to the pay of these watchmen each the difference' between the pay fixed by the above-named appropriation and the allowance made by the 5th section of the civil appropriation act, approved July 28, 1866, viz: $900. (14 Stat. L., p. 321, and 14 Stat. L., p. 374.)
Thus the petitioner’s regular pay was increased to $900 per annum. And by section 7 of the legislative, &c., appropriation act, approved July 23, 1866, an additional 20 per centum was added, (14 Stat. L., p. 207,) which increased the pay of the petitioner to $1,080 per annum, the sum stated in his petition.
Thomas J. Williams, esq., clerk in the office of the Commissioner of Public Buildings, producing the register of appointments to office of persons by the Commissioner, swears that John M. Ashfield was appointed a watchman in the Smithsonian grounds under the joint resolution heretofore referred to, January 7, 1867, and was in office March 2, 1867.
The Assistant Solicitor for the defendants.

Opinion:
Peck, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court:
Claimant, by his petition, represents that he has been since the 7th of January, 1866, until the 2d of March, 1867, a watchman on that part of the public grounds known as the Smithsonian grounds, duly appointed, and that his annual salary was $1,080, which was regularly paid to him by the Commissioner of Public Buildings. He claims the additional compensation of 20 per centum under the joint resolution of the 28th day of February, 1867.
The proofs in the record sustain the allegations of the petition, and are substantially the same as those offered in the case of James Stone. The reasoning of that case applies to this, and therefore we think this claimant should have judgment according to the prayer of his petition.
It is therefore ordered that a judgment he rendered in favor of said John M. Ashfield for the sum of $145 10.