26 . FEDERAL REPORTER.
sum of $50, for which amount the plaintiff admits he_has been already
satisfied, partly by payment and partly by a j udgment against the United
States. 5 In my opinion the plaintiff, by his service, acquired no legal
right of action against the United States for more than $50. In accept-
ing the employment under. the provisions of the act of congress, he ac-
cepted also the rate of compensation fixed by the act. It is provided by
section 203`1¤that there shall be paid to him compensation at the rate of
five dollars a day for each day he is actually on duty, not exceeding 10
days. ·<’This is equivalent to-saying that his maximum pay for perform-
ing·all··the services required of him under the law shall be $50. The act
has, as I read it, Hxed and limited the compensation to $50, and the
plaintiff cannot have a right of action for more than the maximum sum
so allowed. I sustain the demurrer, and enter judgment for the United
States. . . ~ - ,
Ummn Smras v. Form.
(.DzZ¤trict Court, W D. North Oaroltna. February Term, 1888.)
1. Rascu1:—I1¤n1c·rmaur 1¤on—Cmm·An~z·1·v.
An indictment charging, in the exact words of Rev. St. U. S. § 3177, that
‘ defendant "did forcibly attempt to rescue" property seized by a revenue col-
lector, does not state with sutncient certainty what acts were one by defend-
ant that constituted the attempt charged.
2. . · ‘ ‘
j SAM.: conviction on such indictment, although fully warranted by the evidence,
will be arrested on motion, the want of certainty not being waived by failure
to demur. Q y V A
On Motion in Arrest of Judgment.
This is a criminal action against George Ford. The indictment
charges that defendant "did forcibly attempt to rescue" certain property
seized by a revenue collector. Defendant, being convicted, moves in
arrest of judgment for want of certainty in the indictment.
H. O. Jones, U. S. Atty., and G. R,Ba.son, Asst. U. S. Atty., for the
United States. . p A
D. A. Covington and FC L Osborne, for defendant.
. Dxcx, J. The question of law presented as the ground for this mo-
tion has produced some conflict and confusion in judicial opinions, but '
I think it has been settled by a decided weight of authority. ‘
The principle has often been judicially announced that at common
law an attempt to commit a felony is a misdemeanor, and an attempt to
commit a misdemeanor is itself a misdemeanor. The difficulty has been
in defining an attempt to commit a crime with satisfactory accuracy, as
` each case was, in a greater or less degree, dependent on its own circum-
stances. An effort to make a general definition of such offense has, there-