against Schaffner returned, not found. In this con-
dition the case remained until the organization of
this office. The district attorney having reported
that he had no papers in the case, a new statement
was sent him. In the latter part of 1837, and early
part of 1838, this office, pursuing its inquiries, as-
certained that the debt had been paid by the surety,
Schaffner, as far back as February 13, 1828, to
John Kelker, deputy of John Conard, marshal.
Kelker being the only resort, after some correspond-
ence with him, suit was directed against him, and
judgment was obtained, February 21, 1840, for
$316 74. Execution issued on this judgment, and
was returned, June 15, 1841, nulla bona. An alias
issued in 1843, with the same result; and Kelker
being understood to be entirely insolvent, the debt
is considered hopeless.

The usual efforts were made in the first instance to $195 15
collect. Upon their failure, July 31, 1829, suit was
directed. Judgment was obtained, August 25,
1829, but no declaration had been filed, and the
damages were not ascertained. In order to revive
and perfect the case, a new account was sent to H.
D. Gilpin, district attorney, September 12, 1836.
On the 12th December, 1837, a history of this and
other cases was sent to his successor, John M. Read.
Mr. Read procured an order for the clerk to assess
the damages, and he fixed them at $230 47, as of
said date of judgment. Upon issuing a scire facias
to revive the judgment, it was shown that Cornwall
was very ill, and also insolvent. But upon his
death, some time afterwards, it was ascertained that
he left sufficient property to pay. Upon the appoint-
ment of Mr. Meredith, a correspondence took place,
the object of the department being to secure the
debt, upon the administrators being allowed time;
but it appears to have failed, and Mr. Meredith put
the case in the hands of an attorney at Doylestown,
to proceed against him. Upon his resignation, the
case was brought to the notice, July 6, 1842, of his
successor, H. M. Watts. No information has since
been received, but I can see no reason why the debt
should not be collected.

The usual efforts to collect; the account was sent to
Howard Kennedy, postmaster, Hagerstown, to sue
him in the State court. He obtained judgment; but
upon being called on, November 8, 1837, reported
that Bowers was insolvent, and wholly unable to pay.

$8.86

PENNSYLVANIA-Continued.

Collected between 30th

June, 1841, and 30th
June, 1842.

Collected between 30th
June, 1842, and 30th
June, 1843.

Collected between 30th
June, 1843, and 30th

June, 1844.

Proceedings-condition of debt.

Upon the removal of Mr. Bache, the account was
sent to Mr. Ingersoll, district attorney, for suit, to
wit, November 13, 1828, together with three bonds
mentioned. It appeared that the sureties on the first
bond had obtained from Mr. Postmaster General
Meigs a written release, upon Mr. Bache executing
a mortgage on a house and lot in Chesnut street, to
secure the payment of $6,000. A question imme-
diately arose, as to the sufficiency of this release; and
Mr. Postmaster General McLean, being unwilling to
decide, left it to Mr. Ingersoll. No suit was brought
on that bond. In a separate action upon the ac-
count, judgment was obtained against the principal,
February 20, 1829, for $22,235 50. Upon the
second bond, a trial was had against Norvell, No>
vember, 1829. It appeared that this bond, having
been executed and transmitted to the department,
had been sent back to Mr. Bache for additional se-
curity. It remained with him until his removal, and,
having been found by his successor in his office, was
by him sent to the department. The main question
on the trial turned upon the point whether the de-
partment had not, instead of accepting the bond, ac
tually rejected it. The court left it to the jury as a
question of fact, but gave its own opinion that the
bond had been sent back for a specific purpose-an
additional name. The verdict was for the defendant.
A motion was made for a new trial, but the district
attorney expressed his conviction that no other result
was to be expected, and that, both the sureties being
wholly insolvent, no practical benefit could arise
from further efforts. On the 1st August, 1835, Mr.
Gilpin, then district attorney, reported that on the
third bond he had obtained judgments against John
Conard for $29,017 32, and against Esther Bache
and Phillips, executors of Louis Bache, for
$22,235 50. He stated that Conard had left the
State under peculiar circumstances, and there were
no assets in the hands of the executors of Louis
Bache. He doubted if any thing could ever be re-
alized from this large debt. In vol. 2, Senate docu-
ments, 2d session 21st Congress, report 73, page 69,
will be found a letter from Mr. McLean, after he left
the department, to Mr. Clayton, chairman of the
Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, on
the subject of this debt. After the organization of
this office, to wit, on the 12th December, 1837, a
history of the case was given to Mr. Read, district
attorney, and he was requested to inquire particu-
larly into the circumstances of Conard and the
estate of Louis Bache, with a view, if possible, of
making the debt, in whole or in part. Mr. Read