
    PAYMASTER CLARK’S MOTION.
    (11 Court of Claims R,, p. 698;
    — U. S. R., p. —.)
    Cyrus C. Clark, appellee, v. The United States, appellants.
    
      On the court's own Motion.
    
    
      The court below finds as fact that the appellee, a paymaster, lost by rohbenj a package of Government money without fault or neglect on his pari; that he credited himself in his next account-current with the amount lost by robbery, $15,979.87; that this item of credit ivas not acted upon until the final revisión of his accounts at the Treasury, when it was disallowed; that the precise amount of money in the paelcage stolen was known to no oilier person; that he was of ' good moral character, and had always kept regular and exact accounts ; that at the time of the robbery he immediately reported that amount to his superior officers as in the safe robbed. But the court below does not find as a fact the ' amount of the loss, though it directs a deoree in his favor for that amount. The deftnlants appeal, and the caséis submitted on printed arguments.
    
    
      I. In a suit for relief under the Disbursing officers’ Act, (Rev. Sfcat., § 1059,) it is essential that the amount of the loss be determined by the Court of Claims.
    II. Where the findings sot forth all the circumstantial facts from which the court below might have inferred the amount of money in a package stolen from a disbursing officer, but do not find as a fact the amount so lost, the findings are defective as a special verdict, and this court cannot decide upon the weight of the evidence tending to fix the amount.
    
    
      The Reporters’ statement of tlie case:
    The evidence as to the amount of the loss in this case being entirely circumstantial, and the court below being divided upon and having doubts as to its sufficiency in law to entitle the officer to relief, the circumstances tending tp fix the amount were found, but not the ultimate fact, in order that the Supreme Court might pass upon the sufficiency of these circumstantial facts to sustain the decree. It will be perceived that this Court declines so to do, and throws the responsibility of drawing the remaining inference or ultimate fact on the-court below. See Ross’s Case, (post.)
    
    The following are the facts found by the court below :
    I. On the 6th of April, 1865, the claimant lost, by robbery, while in the line of his duty as assistant paymaster in the Army, at Franklin, Tex., a package of Government funds. The package was in Ms official safe at his quarters, and the loss was without fault or neglect on the part of the officer.
    II..The claimant, after duly reporting the loss and making-known the facts to his superior officers, credited himself in his next account-current as follows: “Amount lost by robbery of safe at Franklin, Tex., $15,979.87.” This item of credit was not acted upon by the accounting-officers of the Treasury until the final revision of his accounts, on the 6th of November, 1871, when it was disallowed, and charged to him as a balance on hand.
    III. The robbery was committed in the day-time by forcibly breaking into the claimant’s quarters, during his temporary absence, and then forcibly breaking into the Government safe, in which the funds were. Two persons were apprehended and tried by military commission held at the headquarters of the Department of Hew Mexico, on the 5th June, 1865, (upon the charges and specifications annexed.) On the trial the claimant was a witness, and testified as to the amount of the funds stolen. The commission found the prisoners guilty, (by the finding also annexed,) and the proceedings of the commission were duly approved, and the sentence of the commission carried into effect.
    The claimant, at the time of the robbery, had no clerk or assistant. It appears, from other testimony, that a package of money was in the safe, but the precise amount thereof was known to no person but the claimant. He was of good character, personally and officially, and had always kept regular and exact accounts of the funds in his official custody, and had made due returns in regard to, and properly accounted for, the S|une. He immediately reported to his superior officers that the funds in that safe were $15,979.87, which was the amount of the loss appearing on his subsequent official reports, and charged against him as deficiency on the final revision and settlement of his accounts by the accounting-officers of the Treasury.
    IY. On the 17th of February, 1873, a suit was instituted by the United States, in th“e Circuit Court of the United States for the first circuit, on the official bond of said claimant, which suit is still pending, to recover the sum of $20,000, claimed to be due from him thereon.
    
      Court-martial record referred to in the preceding findings.
    
    [General Orders. No. 16.]
    Headquarters Dept, op Hew Mexico,
    
      Las Cruces, W. M., June 5th, 1865.
    I. Before a military commission held at Franklin, Texas, on the 22d day of May, 1865, pursuant to Special Orders Ho. 14, par. 1, current series, from these headquarters, and of which Lieut. Col. Uelson H. Davis, assistant inspector-general U. S. Army, is president, were tried :
    1. Thomas Boylan, (citizen.)
    Charge 1. — “ Burglary.”
    
      Specification. — “In this, that Thomas Boylan (citizen) did", with felonious intent, break, or assist in breaking, into the house occupied by Major O. 0. Clark, additional paymaster U. S. Army, by bursting the fastenings of one of the windows and entering therein, to the prejudice of peace and good order.
    “ This at Franklin, Texas, on or about the 6th day of April, 1865.”
    Charge 2. — “ Grand larceny.”
    
      Specification. — “In this, that Thomas Boylan (citizen) did enter the house occupied by Major 0. C. Clark, additional paymaster U. S. Army, and did break or assist to break open an iron safe, and carry away the sum of fifteen thousand nine hundred and seventy-nine dollars and eighty-seven cents, more or less, which funds belonged to the United States, and for which Major 0. C. Clark, additional paymaster U. S. Army, is responsible.
    “All this at Franklin, Texas, on or about the 6th day of April, 1875.”
    To which charges and specifications the prisoner- pleaded “ Not guilty.”
    RINDING AND SENTENCE.
    The commission, after mature deliberation upon the evidence adduced, found the prisoner as follows:
    Of the specification of the 1st charge, “ guilty,” except the words “break or assist,” substituting therefor the words “aid and abet,” and excepting the word “ by,” substituting therefor the words “ and did aid and assist in bursting."
    Of the 1st charge, “ guilty.”
    Of the specification of the 2d charge, “ guilty,” except the word “ enter,” substituting therefor the words “ aid and abet in entering,” and excepting the words “did break or assist to break,” substituting therefor the word “ breaking,” and substituting for the words “and carry away,” the words “ and did aid and abet in stealing therefrom and carrying.” .
    Of the 2d charge, “ guilty,” and does therefore sentence him, Thomas Boylan, (citizen,) to be confined to hard labor in charge of a guard, at any military post the department commander may direct, for the period of fifteen years, wearing a ball or weight of twenty-five pounds attached to his left leg by a chain five feet long.
    2d. Oastorio Herrera, (Mexican citizen.)
    Charge 1st. — “ Burglary.”
    
      
      Specification. — “In this, that Oastorio Herrera (Mexico citizen) did, with felonious intent, break, or assist in breaking, into the house occupied by Major O. 0. Clark, additional paymaster U. S. Army, by bursting the fastenings of one ot the windows and entering therein, to the prejudice of peace and good order.
    “All this at Franklin, Texas, on or about th.e 6th of April, 1865.”
    CHARGE 2nd. “Grand larceny.”
    
      Specification. — “ In this, that Oastorio Herrara, (Mexican citizen,) did enter the house occupied by Major C. 0. Clark, additional paymaster U. S. Army, and did break or assist to break open an iron safe containing Government funds, which safe was deposited in the house aforesaid, and did steal from the aforesaid safe and carry away the sum of fifteen thousand nine hundred and seventy-nine dollars and eighty-seven cents, more or less, which funds belonged to the United States, and for which Major C. C. Clark, additional paymaster U. S. Army, is responsible.
    “All this at Franklin, Texas, on or about the 6th day of April, 1805.”
    To which the prisoner plead “not guilty.”
    EIND1NG.
    The commission, after mature deliberation upon the evidence adduced, found the prisoner as follows :
    Of the specification of the 1st charge, “ not guilty.”
    Of the 1st charge, “not guilty.”
    Of the specification of the 2d charge, “not guilty.”
    Of the 2d charge, “not guilty,” “and does therefore acquit him.”
    3d. Luis Morales, (Mexican citizen.)
    Charge 1st. — “Burglary.”
    
      Specification. — “In this, that Luis Morales, (Mexican citizen,) did, with felonious intent, break, or assist in breaking, into the house occupied by Major C. 0. Clark, additional paymaster U. S. Army, by bursting the fastenings of one of the windows and entering therein, to the prejudice of peace and good order.
    “This at Franklin, Texas, on or about the 6th of April, 1865.”
    Charge 2d. — “Grand larceny.”
    
      Specification. — “In this, that Luis Morales, (Mexican citizen,) did enter the house occupied by Major 0. 0. Clark, additional paymaster U. S. Army, and did break, or assist to break, open an iron safe containing Government funds, which safe was deposited in the house aforesaid, and did steal from the aforesaid safe and carry away the sum of fifteen thousand nine hundred and seventy-nine dollars and eighty-seven cents, more or less, which funds belonged to the United States, and for which. Major C. C. Clark, additional paymaster U. S. Army, is responsible.
    “All this at Franklin, Texas, on or about the 6th day of April, 1865.”
    To which charges and specifications the prisoner pleaded “ Dot guilty.”
    FINDING- AND SENTENCE.
    The commission, after mature deliberation upon the evidence adduced, found the prisoner as follows:
    Of the specification of the 1st charge, “guilty.”
    Of the 1st charge, “guilty.”
    Of the specification of'the 2d charge, “guilty.”
    Of the 2d charge, “guilty,” and does therefore sentence him, Luis Morales, (Mexican citizen,) “to be confined at hard labor in charge of the guard at any military post the department commander may direct, for the period of fifteen years, wearing a ball or weight of twenty-five pounds attached to his left leg by a chain five feet long.”
    II. The proceedings, findings, and sentences in the cases of Thomas Boylan, (citizen,) and Luis Morales, (Mexican citizen,) are approved, and the sentences will be duly executed at Fort Oraig, Hew Mexico.
    The proceedings and findings in the case of Oastorio Herrera, (Mexican citizen,) are approved. Herrera will be released from confinement.
    III. The military commission, of which Lieut. Col. Nelson H. Davis, asst, inspector-general U. S. Army, is president, is dissolved.
    By command of Brigadier-General Carleton :
    ERASTUS W. WOOD,
    
      Captain 1st Veteran Inf., California Vol.,
    
    
      A. A. A. General.
    And, on the facts found, the Court of Claims decided as conclusions of law—
    1. The court having ascertain,ed the facts of the loss in this case, and that it was without fault or neglect on the part of the claimant, may render a decree in his favor as directed by the statute, though the evidence of the amount of the funds lost was entirely circumstantial.
    2. The suit having been brought within six years after the claimant's accounts were settled at the Treasury, in which he had charged the United States, with the amount of the loss, and within six years after such item of credit for the funds so lost was first acted upon by the accounting-officers, and consequently within six years from the time when the officer was first held responsible for such loss, the suit is not barred by the statute of limitations, though more than six years elapsed between the loss and the bringing of the suit.
    
      Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Smith for the United States, appellants.
    
      Mr. Charles P. Pike for the appellee.
    
      
      See Moss's Case (post) as totlie essential facts to be found in such oasesof circumstantial evidence.
    
   Mr. Chief-Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court:

Our rules regulating appeals-from the Court of Claims require that the record shall contain, among other things, (Rule 1, sec. 2,) “ a finding by the Court of Claims of the facts in the case established by the evidence, in the nature of a special verdict, but not the evidence establishing'them; and a separate statement of the conclusions of law upon said facts on which the court founds its judgment or decree. The finding of fact aud conclusions of law to be certified to this court as a part of the record.”

The act of Congress under which this action was prosecuted requires the Court of Clams to find, among other things, the amount of the loss which has been sustained. This is essential.

In the finding of facts sent up in this record the loss does not appear. It is stated in the judgment as entered in form and alluded to in the opinion of the court, but is entirely omitted from the special finding, which is to be in the nature of a special verdict, and upon which alone we are to act.

The object of the rule is to“bring the case here for our action as upon a special verdict, leaving us to apply the law to the facts as found, and not to decide upon the weight of the evidence.

Upou the facts set forth iu the special finding, this judgment cannot be sustained, because of the omission to state the amount of the loss. As in our action upon the appeal we do not look beyond the finding, the judgment must be reversed on account of an insufficient finding, and the cause remanded for such further proceedings as law and justice may require.  