ing the cause shall be authorized to grant judgment and award execution accordingly. And all copies of bonds, contracts, or other papers relating to, or connected with, the settlement of any account between the United States and an individual, when certified by the " Secretary or an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury "to be true copies of the original on file, and authenticated under the seal of the Department, may be annexed to such transcripts, and shall have equal validity, and be entitled to the same degree of credit which would be due to the orig. inal papers if produced and authenticated in court: provided, that where suit is brought upon a bond or other sealed instrument, and the defendant pleads 'non est factum,' or makes his motion to the court, verifying such plea or motion by his oath, the court may take the same into consideration, and, if it appears to be necessary for the attainment of justice, may require the production of the original bond, contract, or other paper specified in such affidavit." 13

13 U. S. R. S., § 886, as amended by 28 Stat. 764; Bechtel v. U. S., 101 U. S. 597; U. S. v. Bell, 111 U. S. 477; U. S. v. Stone, 106 U. S. 525; Moses v. U. S., 166 U. S. 571, 598. This section applies to sureties as well as to principals. U. S. v. Gaussen, 19 Wall. 198. It applies only to suits against persons accountable for public moneys as such. U. S. v. Radowitz, 8 Rep. 263. See U. S. v. Griffith, 2 Cranch, C. C. 666. It does not apply to an action on the official bond of a superintendent of the mint for failure to safely keep property intrusted to his care. U. S. v. Bosbyshell (D. C.), 73 Fed. R. 616.

"There are two kinds of transcripts which the statute authorizes the proper officer to certify. First, a transcript from the 'books and proceedings of the treasury;' and second, copies of bonds, contracts, and other papers, etc., which remain on file, and relate to the settlement.' Under the first head are included charges of moneys advanced or paid by the department to the agent, and an entry of items suspended, re

jected, or placed to his credit. These all appear upon the books of the department. The decision made on the vouchers exhibited, and the statement of the amount, constitute, in part, the proceedings of the treasury. Under the second head, copies of papers which remain on file, and which have a relation to the settlement, may be certified. In this case it is essential that the officer certify that the transcripts are true copies of the originals which remain on file.'" Smith v. U. S., 5 Pet. 291, 300, 301, per Mr. Justice M'Lean. "An account stated at the Treasury Department which does not arise in the ordinary mode of doing business in that department can derive no additional validity from being certified under the act of Congress. Such a statement can only be regarded as establishing items for moneys disbursed through the ordinary channels of the department, where the transactions are shown by its books. In these cases, the officers may well certify, for they must have official knowledge of the facts stated. But

"Upon the trial of any indictment against any person for embezzling public moneys, it shall be sufficient evidence, for the purpose of showing a balance against such person, to produce a transcript from the books and proceedings of the Treas

the benefit of the United States from other sources than the department. U. S. v. Buford, 3 Pet. 12; U. S. v. Jones, 8 Pet. 375. A transcript showing the money expended by the officers in supplying the default of the contractor to carry out his contract is competent evidence. U. S. v. Griffith, 2 Cranch C. C. 666. The government need not show that the party had notice of the adjustment or of the balance against him in the transcript. Watkins v. U. S., 9 Wall. 759. “The statute says that a transcript from the books shall be admitted as evidence. A transcript or a transcribing is substantially a copy. A copy from the books, and not of the books, shall be admissible in evidence. An extract from the books, a portion of the books, when authenticated to be a copy, may be given in evidence. While a garbled statement is not evidence, or a mutilated statement, wherein the debits shall be presented and the credits suppressed, or perhaps a statement of results only, it still seems to be clear that it is not necessary that every account with an individual, and all of every account, shall be transcribed as a condition of the admissibility of any one account. The statement presented should be complete in itself, perfect for what it purports to represent, and give both sides of the account as the same stands upon the books." U. S. v. Gaussen, 19 Wall. 212, 214, per Justice Hunt. Treasury statements are only prima facie evidence of the correctness of the balance. The accounting officer may correct mistakes and restate balSoule v. U. S., 100 U. S. 8, 11;

where moneys come into the hands of an individual, as in the case under consideration, the books of the treasury do not exhibit the facts, nor can they be officially known to the officers of the department. In this case, therefore, the claim must be established not by the treasury state ment, but by the evidence on which that statement was made." U. S. v. Buford, 3 Pet. 12, 29, per Mr. Justice M'Lean. A copy of a bond certified by the Secretary of the Treasury without the certificate of the register and auditor is insufficient. U. S. v. Humason, 8 Fed. R. 71. The certificate should show that the transcript exhibits the final adjustment of the debits, as shown not by mere copies of original papers on the files, but upon the books and records of the department. U. S. v. Pinson, 102 U. S. 548; Tiernan v. Jackson, 5 Pet. 592; U. S. v. Buford, 3 Pet. 12; Cox v. U. S., 6 Pet. 172; U. S. v. Jones, 8 Pet. 375; Gratton v. U. S., 15 Pet. 336; Hoyt v. U. S., 10 How. 109; Bruce v. U. S., 17 How. 437. It seems that the balances struck by the treasury and charged as such are not evidence, but that the items should be stated. U. S. v. Edwards, 1 McLean, 347; U. S. v. Jones, 8 Pet. 375; Gratiot v. U. S., 15 Pet. 336; Hoyt v. U. S., 10 How. 109; U. S. v. Martin, 2 Paine, 68; U. S. v. Gaussen, 19 Wall. 198; U. S. v. Smith, 35 Fed. R. 490; U. S. v. Van Zandt, 2 Cranch C. C. 338; U. S. v. Kuhn, 4 Cranch C. C. 401. A transcript from the books may be evidence of charges for moneys advanced or paid by the department to the agent, and claims, suspended, rejected, or placed to his credit; but not of moneys received by him for U. S. v. Ecksford, 1 How. 250, 263;

ances.

“A

ury Department, as provided by the preceding section.” copy of any return of a contract returned and filed in the returns-office of the Department of the Interior, as provided by law, when certified by the clerk of said office to be full and complete, and when authenticated by the seal of the Department, shall be evidence in any prosecution against any officer for falsely and corruptly swearing to the affidavit required by law to be made by such officer in making his return of any contract as required by law, to said returns-office." 15

"Copies of the quarterly returns of postmasters and of any papers pertaining to the accounts in the office of the sixth auditor, and transcripts from the money-order account-books of the Post-Office Department, when certified by the sixth auditor under the seal of his office, shall be admitted as evidence in the courts of the United States, in civil suits and criminal prosecutions; and in any civil suit, in case of delinquency of any postmaster or contractor, a statement of the account, certified as aforesaid, shall be admitted in evidence, and the court shall be authorized thereupon to give judgment and award execution, subject to the provisions of law as to proceedings in such civil suits." 16

"In all suits for the recovery of balances due from postmasters, a copy, duly certified under the seal of the sixth auditor, of the statement of any postmaster, special agent, or other person, employed by the Postmaster-General, or the auditor for that purpose, that he has mailed a letter to such delinquent postmaster, at the postoffice where the indebtedness accrued, or at his last usual place of abode; that a sufficient time has elapsed for said letter to have reached its destination in the

U. S. v. Eggleson, 4 Saw. 201; U. S. v. Hunt, 105 U. S. 183, 187. But see U. S. v. Collier, 3 Blatchf. 325; Ex parte Randolph, 2 Brock. 44. The errors made in striking the balance may be proved by the defendant by the procuring of the original vouchers, or otherwise. Soule v. U. S., 100 U. S. 8; Bruce v. U. S., 17 How. 437; U. S. v. Stone, 106 U. S. 525. The defendant by accepting the credits given him does not waive the objection to the items on the debit side. U. S. v. Jones, 8 Pet. 375.

14 U. S. R. S., § 887. See U. S. v. Gaussen, 19 Wall. 198.

15 U. S. R. S., § 888. See U. S. R. S., $3744.

16 U. S. R. S., § 889; U. S. v. Dumas, 149 U. S. 278; U. S. v. Carlowitz (C. C. A.), 80 Fed. R. 852; Soule v. U. S., 100 U. S. 8, 11; U. S. v. Harrill, McAll. 243; U. S. v. Hodge, 13 How. 478; U. S. v. Hilliard, 3 McLean, 324; U. S. v. Wilkinson, 12 How. 246; Postmaster-General v. Rice, Gilp. 554; Lawrence v. U. S., 2 McLean, 581; U. S. v. Snyder, 14 Fed. R. 554.

ordinary course of the mail, and the payment of such balance has not been received, within the time designated in his instructions, shall be received as sufficient evidence in the courts of the United States or other courts, that a demand has been made upon the delinquent postmaster; but when the account of a late postmaster has been once adjusted and settled, and a demand has been made for the balance appearing to be due, and afterward allowances are made on credits entered, it shall not be necessary to make a further demand for the new balance found to be due." 17

"Copies of any records, books, or papers in the general land office, authenticated by the seal and certified by the commissioner thereof, or, when his office is vacant, by the principal clerk, shall be evidence equally with the originals thereof. And literal exemplifications of any such records shall be held, when so introduced in evidence, to be of the same validity as if the names of the officers signing and countersigning the same had been fully inserted in such record." 18

17 U. S. R. S., § 890.

18 U. S. R. S., § 891. This section only applies to official documents. Block v. U. S., 7 Ct. CL. 406. The words, "evidence equally with the originals," do not mean that in all cases the copy shall have the same probative force as the original, and that on a question as to some particular word or figure, the copy shall be as convincing as the original; it merely requires the copy to be regarded as of the same class in the grades of evidence, as to written and parol, and primary and secondary. Campbell v. Laclede Gas Co., 119 U. S. 445, 449. See Galt v. Galloway, 4 Pet. 331. A party is not deprived of his title because of a defective record, if he has a perfect patent. A perfect record of a perfect patent proves the grant; but a perfect record of an imperfect patent, or an imperfect record of a perfect patent, has no such effect. In such a case, if a perfect patent has in fact issued, it must be proved in some other way than by

the record. McGarrahan v. Mining Co., 96 U. S. 316, 323; Campbell v. Laclede Gas Co., 119 U. S. 445, 449. The defective record in the general land office does not deprive a party of his rights, and the contents of the original may be shown if the record or transcript is not a true copy. McGarrahan v. Mining Co., 96 U. S. 316, 33; Campbell v. Laclede Gas Co., 119 U. S. 445. "The names need not be fully inserted in the record, but it must appear in some form that the names were actually signed to the patent when it issued." McGarrahan v. Mining Co., 96 U. S. 316, 323. A perfect record of a perfect patent is presumptive evidence of its delivery to and acceptance by the grantee. Ibid. An entry in the books of the land office, that the balance of the purchase-money was paid by the person "to whom the patent had issued," is some evidence that a patent issued, although no patent is produced. Willis v. Bucher, 3 Wash. C. C. 369. A certificate by a receiver

"Written or printed copies of any records, books, papers, or drawings belonging to the patent office, and of letters-patent authenticated by the seal and certified by the commissioner or acting commissioner thereof, shall be evidence in all cases wherein the originals could be evidence; and any person making application therefor, and paying the fee required by law, shall have certified copies thereof." 19