Two Hundred Chests of Tea......9 Wheat. 438-9... 410 Underwood v. Lilly.. Union Bank v. Ridgely..........1 Har. & Gill 430. .... United States v. Bachelder..... United States v. Macdaniel. United States v. Wilkins.... 2 Gallis. 16.. ..12 Wheat. 69. 2 Cr. 358.... 12 Wheat. 466, 474.. United States Bank v. Dandridge. 12 Wheat. 64.... United States Bank v. Halstead...10 Wheat. 51, 60-1... V Van Bergen v. Palmer.... Vanhorne v. Dorrance... Venable v. United States Bank....2 Pet. 119-20..... .18 Johns. 504.... .2 Dall. 304.... 640 ......483, 489, 492 358 Western University v. Robinson..12 S. & R. 29... Wheaton v. Sexton.... Wheeler v. Caryl... White v. Hamilton.. .441, 447 576 197 Whiteacres v. Hamkinson.. 4 Wheat. 507... .Ambl. 121..... .1 Yeates 183.. Williams v. East India Co........3 East 193.... Williams v. United States Bank...11 Wheat. 414. Willink v. Miles..... Withers v. Tylor... Wood v. Lide... ... 2 A. K. Marsh. 174.......... 4 Cr. 180... 506 402 506 201 ..147, 220 RULES AND ORDERS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. RULE NO. 39. § 1. It is ordered by the court, that during the session of the court, any gentleman of the bar having a cause on the docket, and wishing to use any book or books in the law library, shall be at liberty, upon application to the clerk of the court, to receive an order to take the same (not exceeding at any one time three), from the library, he being thereby responsible for the due return of the same, within a reasonable time, or when required by the clerk. And it shall be the duty of the clerk, to keep in a book for that purpose, a record of all books so delivered, which are to be charged against the party receiving the same; and in case the same shall not be so returned, the party receiving the same, shall be responsible for, and forfeit and pay twice the value thereof; as also one dollar per day for each day's detention beyond the limited time. § 2. It is ordered by the court, that during the session of the court, any judge thereof may take from the law library any book or books he may think proper, he being responsible for the due return thereof. RULE No. 40. Whereas, it has been represented to the court, that it would in many cases accommodate counsel, and save expense to parties, to submit causes upon printed arguments; it is, therefore, ordered, that in all cases brought here on appeal, writ of error or otherwise, the court will receive printed arguments, if the counsel on either, or both, sides shall choose so to submit the same. 7 PET.-B [xvii] CASES DETERMINED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. JANUARY TERM, 1833. *UNITED STATES, Plaintiffs in error, v. GEORGE MACDANIEL. Counter-claim against the government.—Compensation of public officers. Usage. The United States instituted a suit to recover a balance charged on the books of the treasury department against the defendant, who was a clerk in the navy department, at a fixed annual salary, and acted as agent for the payment of moneys due to the navy pensioners, the privateer pensioners, and for navy disbursements; for the payment of which, funds were placed in his hands by the government; he had received an annual compensation for his services in the payment of the navy pensioners; and for fifteen years, he had received, in preceding accounts, commissions of one per cent., on the moneys paid by him for navy disbursements; he claimed these commissions at the treasury, and the claim was there rejected by the accounting officers; if allowed the same, he was not indebted to the government. The United States, on the trial of the case in the circuit court, denied the right of the defendant to these commissions, as they had not been allowed to him by any department of the government, and asserted, that the jury had not power to allow them on the trial. [ *2 The rejection of the claim to commissions by the treasury department, formed no objection to the admission of it as evidence of set-off before the *jury; had the claim never been presented to the department, it could not have been admitted as evidence by the court: but, as it had been made out in form, and presented to the proper accounting officers, and had been rejected, the circuit court did right in submitting it to the jury, if the claim was considered equitable.' This court will not sanction a limitation of the power of the circuit court, in cases of this kind, to the admission of evidence to the jury on a trial, only to such items of set-off against the claims 1 See United States v. Ripley, post, p. 18; United States v. Fillebrown, post, p. 28; United States v. Ringgold, 8 Pet. 150; Gratiot v. United States, 15 Id. 336; Milnor v. Metz, 16 Id. 221; Gratiot v. United States, 4 How. 80; United States v. Buchanan, 8 Id. 83; Brown v. United 7 PET.-1 States, 9 Id. 487; Watkins v. United States, 9 1 |