
    CLARK’S CASE.
    (11 C. Cls. R., 698; 96 U. S. R., 37.)
    Cyrus C. Clark, appellee, v. The United States appellants.
    
      On the defendants’ Appeal.
    
    
      A paymaster’s safe is 'broken open and a package-of money stolen without fault or neglect on Ms pari. No one but himself knows the amount, lie reports it immediately both to the commanding officer of the post and to his superior officer in the Pay Department. The robber is arrested and convicted by a military court on the testimony of the paymaster of stealing that amount, lie also charges the Government with, the same amount in his official accounts. They remain unadjusted for several years. Then the auditing officers disallow this item, and suit is brought against the paymaster and his sureties on their bond. He brings suit for relief under the Disbursing officers’ Act. The defendants plead the statute of limitations.
    
    The court below holds: (1) That tile claimant cannot he a witness on his own behalf to prove the amount of tiro stolon money under Christians’ Case (7 C. CJs. R., 431); (2) That the amount may be shown by circumstantial evidence where it is impossible to show it by positive; (3) That if the statute of limitations extends to cases where an officer is seeking relief under the Disbursing officers’ Act, it does not begin to run until he is “held responsible” for the loss; (4) That he cannot bring an action for relief under the statute until he has been so held responsible (Hall’s Casa, 9 C. Gis. E., 270). Judgment for the claimant. The defendants appeal.
    The .judgment of the court below is reversed and the ease remanded for further proceedings. The Snpre me Court now holds: (1) That when the. court below, in addition to its findings in the nature of a special verdict, sends up as part of its findings all the evidence on which the ultimate fact was found, the appellate court should look at both and see whether the evidence is competent proof of the fact; (2) That the Supreme Court null not uow decide whether the court below was bound to include in its findings the evidence referred to; (3) That the evidence in this case is not competent to sustain the ultimate fact, viz, the amount of the stolen money; (4) That at the common law a party is a competent witness to prove the contents of a package lost or destroyed, if the circumstances make some one liable for the, loss in a court of justice and the loss is established by other evidence; (5) That the Act 25ih June, 1868 (Rev. Stat., § 1079), providing that, no claimant shall bo a competent witness, was merely intended to restore the rale of the common law, leaving the claimant a competent witness to prove tlie amount; (6) That if the statute of limitations (Rev. Statv § 1069) is applicable to cases under the Disbursing officers’ Act (Rev. Stat., § 1059,1062), it does not begin to run until the accounting officers have refused to recognize the loss as a credit in the officer’s accounts; for it is only when a disbursing officer has been “held responsible” at the Treasury that he acquires a right to bring a suit for relief under the statute.
   Mr. Justice Milder

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, February 25, 1878.

Mr. Justice Harlan (with whom conciu’red Clifford, Swayue, .and Strong, JJ.) delivered a dissenting opinion.  