43 68

365 84

116 97

Upon failure to collect by draft, suit was directed,
September 27, 1837. Judgment was reported,
October, 1839, and execution issued. The attention
of the district attorney of western district having
been called to this case and others, April 2, 1841,
he stated, April 9, 1841, that the suit had been
brought in the Williamsport section, where he prom-
ised in a short time to examine and report. The pres-
ent district attorney has also been called on, and has
promised a full report on all cases in the district.
Upon failure to collect by draft, suit was directed, $11 06
March 9, 1838. Judgment was obtained, October,
1839. This case is also in the Williamsport section,
and the information equally defective as in the pre-
ceding. A correspondence has lately taken place
with Bailey, from which it appears that the amount
of damages was not assessed, and leading to the
conclusion that the debt can be made it properly at-
tended to.

Upon failure to collect by draft, suit was directed
against the late postmaster alone, April 17, 1839.
The case is in the Williamsport section, and the
only information received is, that the writ issued, Oc-
tober, 1839.

Collected by suit on the 4th December, 1841,
$284 54, and on the 28th February, 1842, $81 30;
making $365 84, as stated, in full of the debt and
interest.

The debt was originally $71 61. Upon failure to col-
lect by draft, suit was directed, August 2, 1838.
Stonebraker produced to Mr. Anthony, who acted
for the district attorney at Williamsport, a receipt
for $15, corresponding within a few cents with a
credit already given, and, deducting this credit, paid
him the balance, $56 71. As soon as the transac-
tion was reported, the facts were explained, and at
October term, 1839, Mr. Anthony reported that
Stonebraker promised to pay the balance. Nothing
has been reported since.

Collected by suit, with interest, March 29, 1842.

$19 27

12.09

14.90

Upon failure to collect by draft, suit was directed,
June 17, 1839. This case is
section of the western district.

in the Williamsport
For October, 1839,

the report was, summons issued. It is expected a
report will be made by the present district attorney,
under a call on him for that purpose.

Collected by suit, and paid over, July 2, 1841.

100 00

110M

Proceedings-condition of debt.

Upon failure to collect by draft, suit was directed, $18 34
September 19, 1839, against the principal alone.
The sureties were not directed to be sued, as they
were liable for but a small portion of the amount,
and as the principal was represented to be perfectly
good for the amount. This case is in the Williams-
port section of the western district, and no informa-
tion has as yet been obtained of the result of the
suit.

Upon failure of the usual efforts to collect by draft,
suit was directed against the principal, January 29,
1840. The sureties were not included, as they were
represented to be in moderate circumstances, and
were liable for but a small portion of the amount.
This case is also in the Williamsport section of the
western district, and no information of the case has
been obtained since the suit was directed,
Upon failure of the usual efforts to collect by draft,
suit was directed, December 19, 1839, in the eastern
district. Upon the sureties being served with process,
they represented that the principal was solvent, and
had removed to Illinois. Upon their payment of the
costs, the office agreed to suspend proceedings against
them, and sue the principal. Suit was accordingly
directed against him in Illinois district, March 11,
1840. Judgment was obtained, June 12, 1840.
Execution issued, and was levied upon real estate,
which was bid in for the United States, May 1, 1842.
The title vested on the 1st November, 1843, though
the deed has not yet been transmitted by the late
marshal.

Upon failure of the usual efforts to collect by draft,
suit was directed, December 10, 1839. The case, as
presented for trial, was rendered complex by the facts,
that for several entire quarters, embraced within the
period of the account, the late postmaster had failed
to render returns; that the bond originally given,
and applying to a considerable portion of the default,
had been destroyed by the fire of 1836, and by the
statute of limitation applicable to sureties. The of-
fice presented its views fully upon the several points
likely to arise, on the 30th May, 1843, and sent a
highly intelligent clerk to assist him in explaining
the account. There was a resolute defence of the
sureties. In the result, judgment was obtained
against the principal for $2,510 37, December 4,
1843, and against the suréties for $259. Upon the
latter, the district attorney filed a motion for a new
trial. The principal is understood to be insolvent.
[P. S. $259, and $8 69 interest, paid over, Decem-
ber 3, 1844; $6 85 interest paid over, December
12, 1844.]

79 61

$17 52

259 00 1642 80