
    EDWARD KURTZ v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [Not reported in C. Cls. R.,
    164; U. S., 49.]
    
      On the defendants Appeal.
    
    This was a petition by Kurtz, who was clerk and commissioner of the Circuit Court for the eastern district of Wisconsin, for fees alleged to have been earned by him in both capacities.
    . The case resulted in the allowance of a large number of disputed items, and a final judgment in favor of- the petitioner in the sum of $165.10. The Government appealed, and assigned as error the allowance of certain items.
    The court below allows the clerk to charge at the rate of 15 cents per folio, treating each document, judgment, order, and direction of the court as a separate instrument for the enumeration of folios, instead of counting the folios of the record as one instrument continuously from beginning to end. Upon tbis item the court below is reversed on the ground that it was the intent of the statute that for the purpose of making up the record as a history of the case the entire record shall be taken as one instrument.
    The next disputed item was the allowance of a fee of $2 “in a cause where issue is joined but no testimony is given.”
    The defendants claim that a plea of not guilty having been withdrawn, a plea of guilty subsequently entered and judgment entered on such plea, the allowance was illegal. The Supreme Court sustains the allowance.
    The next disputed item differs from the last only in the fact that after issue was joined the case was subsequently discontinued upon nol. pros, entered. The court below allows the charge and the Supreme Court sustains it.
    The next disputed item is the allowance by the court below of a folio charge for making a record of the names of jurors, with their residences, while acting with a jury commissioner. (Act June 30,1879, 21 Stat. L., 43.)
    The Supreme Court sustains 'the charge.
    The final objection of the Government is made to an item for entering an order of court directing the clerk as to what disposition to make of the money received for fines in certain cases and for filing thirteen certificates of deposit of the bank for fines paid in to the credit of the Treasurer of the United States. The claim of the Government is that the statutory fee of 1 per cent “for receiving, keeping, and paying out money in pursuance of any statute or order of court ” covers all incidental services in this connection, including the entry of all orders for the payment of the money, and a filing of all receipts given by the persons to whom it is paid.
    The court below decides that the commission of 1 per cent was intended to compensate the clerk for his services and responsibility in the receipt, the safe-keeping and the proper disbursement of the money, and was not intended to deprive him of fees to which he would have been entitled if the money had been kept and disbursed by another officer.
    The Supreme Court sustains the item on the same ground.
   Mr. Justice BrowN

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, October 26, 1896.  