wrnnuims v. UNITED sur »=  25
charged a fee for 8. monthly report in each case. This is not correct.
He is not required to make a separate monthly report in each case, but
he is required to make, at the end of each month, one report of all cases
had during the particular month. For this report made in duplicate he
is entitled to 15 cents a folio, and for the certificate attached thereto 15
cents.
In conclusion I {ind that the fees to which petitioner is entitled on the
account sued on amount in the aggregate to $477.25. But he admits
having been paid on this account the sum of $296.25. Judgment will
therefore be entered in his favor for the sum of $181, being the balance
found to be due on the account.
I have caretully and critically examined the account and the papers
therewith submitted in evidence in this cause, and, alter mature consid-
eration, have prepared an opinion of unusual length. I could hardly
have done less and covered all the points presented in the cause, which
I desired to do because of their importance to the United States, to the
petitioner, and to all others of like interest with the petitioner.
W1Lr.1AMs v. Uuirzn STATES.
(District Court, D. Maryland. February 24, 1888.) '
Ennpggpns AND VOTERS-·SUPERVISORS—COMPENSA'1'ION—REV. Sr. U. S. §§ 2012,
A The compensation of a supervisor of elections appointed under section 2012
is, by section 2031, limited to $50, notwithstanding he may, in the perform-
ance of his duties, have necessarily served more than 10 days.
(Syllabus by the Court.) A
At Law. ‘
John A. Williams brings this action against the United States, under
the act of March 3, 1887, to recover compensation beyond the sum al-
lowed for services as supervisor of elections in the city of Baltimore.
John E., Bennett, for petitioner. -
Thomas G. Hayes and A. Stirling Pennington, for the United States.
Momus, ]. This is a suit by a supervisor of elections, appointed un-
der section 2012 of the United States Revised Statutes, to recover from
· the United States compensation beyond and in addition to the sum ot
$50, upon the ground that he was necessarily employed in the perform-
ance of his duties for a longer period than 10 days.
The United States, by its demurrer, admits the statement of the plainv
tiff that he was duly appointed and qualified and served as supervisor
of elections in the city of Baltimore for 19 days in the months of Sep-
tember and October, 1886, but denies that his service for 19 days gives _
the plaintiff a cause of action against the United States for more than the