Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/89

UNITED STATES V. HUMASON. 75 �this action is not barred by any lapse of time, still, upon a motion for a new trial, wbere \ verdict bas been obtained by the defendant, the court must take into consideration the hardship, if not injustice, of compelling the sureties under such circumstances to account for money received by their principal so long ago, and particularly when, by his sudden death, he was prevented from making and returning an account of it himself. True, the sureties were not without obligation and duty in this matter themselves; and if this consideration was now being urged as a reason why this action should not be main- tained against the sureties, it might well be answered that, having undertaken for their principal, it was their duty to see that he kept the condition of his bond or take the consequences, and that when he died away from home, with his aecounts more than a quarter in arrear, it was their duty, through the appointment of an adminis- trator and otherwise, to have his aecounts made up and forwarded to the department for settlement. But this is a motion to set aside a verdict obtained by the defendant without any fault of hers, and the neglect of the plaintifF in asserting this claim until it has become stale, may be properly considered thereou, �The count upon the first bond alleges a failiire to account for $1,006.60 received by Logan between August 1, 1861, and June 30, 1862, while in charge of the Warm Spring ageney. This sum is made up of $978.74 that appears from Logan's verified statement to the department to have been in his hands on June 30, 1862, and belonging to varions specified funds applicable to the business of his ageney; and $27.32 disallowed at the department in the examination of his aecounts under the first bond. But it also appears from Lo- gan's account current with the department for the quarter ending June 30, 1862, that the very sam'e funds, amounting to $978.74, were on July 1, 1862, credited to the United States by him under his second bond. And thus it appears from the treasury transcript itself that nothing is due upon the first bond, and therefore nothing ought to be recovered on it. The trifling differences between his aecounts and the audit of the department, amounting in the aggregate to $27.32, in a total expenditure of $11,562.35 received under said bond, is not Bufficient to affect the question. �The count upon the second bond alleges a failure to account for $7,678.66, received by Logan between July 1, 1862, and May 19, 1865. This sum is made up of $5,781.01 that appears from Logan's verified statement to the department to have been in his hands on March 31, 1865, and belonging to various specified funds applicable ��� �