United States Circuit Court of
Appeals.
Argument was yesterday heard in the
United States Circuit Court of Apepals [Appeals?],
in the case of Andrew W. Smythe et als.,
plaintiffs in error, vs. The United States,
defendant in error. Judge F.B. Earhart,
special assistant United States attorney,
and C.E. Cocke represent the government,
and J.D. Rouse, Wm. [William?] Grant,
W.B. Spencer and E. Howard McCaleb are
looking after Smythe's interests.
The suit is brought up on an appeal
from the United States Circuit Court.
The suit was brought by the United
States against Andrew Smythe, and the
sureties on his official bond, as
superintendent of the Mint at New Orleans, to
recover a balance of $25,000, which it is
alleged he received and failed to account
for as required by the conditions of his
bond.
The brief in behalf of the plaintiffs in
error states that evidence was offered by
the plaintiffs in error and submitted to
the jury without objection, showing that
there was a fire in the vault of the Mint,
as alleged in the answers, and that
currency to the amount of $25,000, part of
the funds of the Mint, contained in a box,
was charred, burned and destroyed. That
the government took possession of the box
and burned money was shown by the
proofs and not denied. The government's
expert admitted that they were able to
identify $1182, which was deposited in
the Mint, where it now remains, but
claimed that no more could be identified,
whereas the witnesses of the plaintiffs in
error testified particularly that the box
when it was burned contained $25,000.
The fire occurred June 24, 1893, and it
was not until Feb. 9, that notice of
the shortage was served on the sureties.
In his brief Judge Earhart states that
the evidence in this case shows that
Superintendent Smythe received, but did
not safely keep, all moneys until legally
withdrawn, which he so received under
section 3506, R. S., but that there was a
deficit of $25,000, which is due the United
States, with 6 per cent interest thereon
from the 1st of April, 1893, and that no
acts, omissions or negligence of his
subordinate employees, under section 3506, will
relieve him and his sureties from liability
to the United States for this deficit.
It is proposed, states Judge Earhart, by
oral argument to review all the testimony
in the record as to this defense of "loss
by an accident of fire" of this $25,000 in
the cashier's vault, which upon analysis,
even including the testimony of Mr.
Dowling, clearly proves that if by his own
omissions of negligence, etc., in
permitting a wooden box in which was
contained combustible material, such as pine
kindling wood, matches, candles, paper,
etc., to be placed in his vault, and on
which he placed a tin box which he in his
own testimony said contained $25,000 in
currency, and that if such wooden box
containing said combustible material had
never been permitted by him to be placed
in that vault, the tin box which contained
the $25,000 would never have been placed
under the top of the same, and there
would have been no such "accident of
fire." Considering the force, continues
Judge Earhart, of all the testimony in
the record relative to the burning of this
tin box and its contents, it is beyond his
comprehension to conceive of any principle
of law to apply to the facts of the
burning of the money by which the
obligation of the statuary bond of Dr.
Smythe and his sureties for this deficit of
$25,000 is extinguished, simply because
plaitiffs in error claim the money was
burned.
The case was argued until late in the
afternoon, when court adjourned for the
day. Judges Shelby, Toulme and Newman
presided.
