:18 ;   m02m.. . ‘
.to—·th.e.e proper ?acc0unting¤¤oiiicer.of the treasury, department, was for
$919.10, and runs from February 18, 1887, to June.7, 1887. , On this
.account.there was allowed and paid by suchioflicer the sum of $296.25.
` The balance claimed to.be due was $622.85. l - , — ~   ._
— Geo. H. Patwbk, for plaintiff.
J. D. Burnett, U. S. Dist. Atty., for defendant. `
Tounmm, J., (after stating the facts as above.) This is a suit brought
under the recent act of congress, approved March 3, 1887, (24 U. S. St.
at Large, 50,5,) T The,plaintiH' isa commissionenof the circuit court of 7
the United States for the Southern district of Alabama, and claims that
the amountsued forris a. balance due him for services rendered byhim
as commissioner for and on behalf of the United States, The account
U sued. on is `itemized, and ais fully set out in the petition. .It was verified
¤byoath,<and~duly presented to and approved by the circuit court of the
United States for the Southern district of ,A1abams; and was transmitted
to the Jlrst comptrollerof the treasury, department. .,,,A,pai·tial payment
.»was.:made on the account, but at largeportion- of it wasdisallowed by
the comptroller; rand thi_s‘snitjis brought to recover the balance, the pay-
`fment nxadebeing admitted as a credit orrthe. account. To the petition
or complaintethe district attorney interposes the plea of general issue,-—
, a general denial of the allegations of theecomplainti The issue as pre-
lsented brings. before the courtithc entireacconnt as setoutin the peti-
. "tion, and makeséit ri-ncumbentonrthe plaintiff .to;sh0w tothe satisfaction
of the court that the services therein charged forywere actually rendered
...¤·a.s¢¤sa*» .¤·ad.¢hat the charzas ¢h¤rsf¤r¤r¤—_¤<=¤¤¤¤i¤e¢¤ law- Th¤"¤v¥-
dence submitted bythe plaintiffrirrsupport of his claim consists of his
sworn-, statement in court, the papers ` in the several e cases specifically
_m1mb¢1‘¢q1` ‘d¥idY gpeutiouec Yin the petitionpthe accounttsetv outinthe pe-
Ytition, andftheorder. of the »circuitfcou,rt; allowing the same. . no ;
¤ . The Bret question to be considered iswhéther all the services charged for
were actually rendered, and, secondly, whether all thefees claimedtih the
__account,are. authorized by law,. , The law ,of costsmust bedeemed and
¥he1da~penal·law,¢and no ree must be taken except in cases- expressly pro-
Zyided by law; i1QBrick;, Dig;‘41‘7L, § 6;j Day vi Woodttcrth; 13 Hovn;363.
"Oiiiccrs wh'oare'entit.1ediitonzeceive feesgfor their services-can receiveionly
such fees as are s ecincally prescribed by- law.- Rev..St. §§ $23,17464*,
3].7657   v. -’_- Railway 0o;,‘81 (Ala-; 94-96, `1¢South.‘ Rep._,214.
][I`hejstatu_tesof.theUnitediStates prescribe the services for which commis-
sioners areentitled to receive fees, and prescribe the fees that shall be
  `. SeeQMv._sSt. §§ 828, 847 gy ‘ `Unless we Gnd in`the,statutes au-
__tho1‘ity— for thafees charged. in the account sued on, they cannot be al-
lowed. Jemwn v. Stewart, 12 Fed. Fep. 271, 275. The first item found
, in the account, and which is charged. in;every¢ case mentionedjn iit,;(ex-
Soept‘the*{irst tlve;)ris;fcr azcomplaint. r»—··. The usual mode of » proceeding
before amagistrate onjusticeivof the peace in acriminal prosecutiomin
ethis state *is — by a icomplaintpirr rwritiug. made bynthe; person who: insti-
tutes the prosecution,. which is  womntoiand nledmrltb the magistrate.