Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/553

KERSHAW V. TOWN OF HANOOOK. 641 �the oath of office, and was under orders to hold himaelf in readiness to start for his post at a moment's notice; that on November 4th he received orders to report for duty, and started the same day, arriving at his destination and reporting for duty on January 11, 1873, and went to work at putting the affairs of the agency in shape to be turned over to him, until January 20, 1873, when he receipted for the property to his predecessor and took charge of the agency. �The government fixed the date at which his salary should begin to run at January 20th, the day he relieved his predecessor, and disallowed Eoberts' claim in his account for salary from September 28, 1873, the date of commission. �Channing Richards, U. S. Atty., for plaintiff. �L. H. Pummill, contra. �Swing, D. J., eharged the jury — 1. That if they found that Eob- erts had no notice of the price agreed upon between the government and the telegraph company for such messages, and that he paid the price demanded by the company, in good faith, he was entitled to credit therefor in his account. �2. That if they found he paid the interpreters in good faith, under instructions previously given, at the rate of $500 a year, and without knowledge of the change in the law fixing their compensation at $400 a year, he was entitled to credit therefor in his accOunt. �3. That the defendant was entitled to his salary from the time they found he actually went to work for the government. �Verdict for plaintiff for $53.17. ���Kbrshaw V. TowN OF Hancock. �{Circuit Court, JV. B. New York. November 4, 1S80.) �1. Stattjtb dp Limitations. �Coupons detached from bonds are substantially copies of and partake of the nature of the bonds from which they are detached, and the statute of linuta- tions which applies to them is the one which relates to sealed instruments. Hence they are not barred by lapse of time short of 20 years. �E. B. Thomas, for plaintiff. �Wm. Gleason, for defendant. �Wallacb, D. J. ,The defendant has pleaded the six years' statute of limitations, and insists upon it as a defence to the coupons upon which the action is brought. These coupons were originally attached to bonds; but, after being detached, were sold to the plaintiff, and ��� �