
    HARVEY D. WILSON v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [No 15035.
    Decided January 17, 1887.]
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    The claimant establishes bis right to a certain bounty. The defendants set up a counter-claim for §114, alleging that a horse furnished and used by him as a soldier, for which he was paid §114, had been stolen. No evidence is produced except a quartermaster’s roll, on the margin of which is noted, “ Void — horse proven aioay as stolen.”
    
    A memorandum upon the official purchase-roll of a quartermaster stating that a certain horse was “proven aioay as stolen ” may justify delay and inquiry on the part of the accounting officers, but is not sufficient evidence to justify a judgment on a counter-claim to recover back money paid for the use of the horse.
    
      The Reporters’ statemeut of the case:
    The following are the facts found by the court:
    I. The claimant was an enlisled man of Company F, Fifteenth Begiment Missouri Cavalry Volunteers, and served in said regiment during the late rebellion from November 1, 1863, to July 1,1865.
    II. During a part of the time the claimant was in this service, to wit, from June 19,1864, to April 1,1865, amounting to two hundred and eighty-five days, he furnished the horse and equipments on which he was mounted, claiming them as his own. March 25,1869, he filed a claim in the Treasury Department for the íl use and risk of the horse and equipments,” amounting, at" 40 cents a day, to $114,which was allowed and paid January-19, 1870.
    III. After April 1,1865, no soldier was allowed to furnish his horse, and the troops were mounted on Government horses. The soldiers were given their choice either to send their horses home or to sell them to the Government. The purchases from this company were made by Captain Owen, assistant quartermaster. In his report of these transaction's he gives a list of the names of soldiers from whom he purchased horses. In that list appears the name of the claimant, over which is drawn a heavy ink mark. On the margin are these words: “Void— horse proven away as stolen.”
    
      Mr. TV. B. King for the claimant.
    
      Mr. Heber J. May (with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Howard) for the defendants:
    If the claimant has received money from the Government which he is not entitled to hold, without fraud on his part, it can be recovered back upon counter-claim. (MeKlrath v. United States, 12 C. Cls. It.,,201,312; MeKlrath v. United States, 102 U. S. R., 426; Looney v. Hist. Col., 19 O. Cls. R., 233; Charles v. United States, 19 C. Cls. R., 318.)
    The facts show the claimant has in his possession the sum of $114 which belongs to the defendants. Under the law, this money, whether obtained by fraud, or mistake of fact or law or both may be reclaimed by the Government.
   Scoeield, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

There is no controversy about the claim for bounty. The Act June 16,1880 (21 Stat. L., 283), directs the payment of $100 bounty to the enlisted men of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Missouri Cavalry Volunteers “who served the full period of one year or more.” The return of the War Department shows that the claimant so served for twenty months. The dispute is about the counter-claim.

It is shown and admitted that the claimant furnished a horse and equipments and used the same in the Government service for two hundred and eighty-five days, and that he was paid therefor $114. ft is now alleged that the horse did not belong to Mm, but had been stolen from somebody else. The allegation is based upon a report; of Captain Owen, assistant quartermaster. We do not think the report sustains the allegation.

After the Government, by a change in policy, undertook to furnish horses for the cavalry the quartermasters were authorized to purchase the horse of any soldier wishing to sell. Those who chose to retain their horses were allowed to send them home. The purchases from the claimant’s company were made by Captain Owen. In the report of this officer appears a list of the names of soldiers from whom he purchased horses. In that list is the name of the claimant, erased. On the margin these words are written: “Void — horse proven away as stolen.” If this memorandum was to be taken as evidence it only proves that the quartermaster did not buy the claimant’s horse, because the horse was not on hand for delivery, but had been stolen away from camp. The memorandum might justify delay and inquiry on the part of the accounting officers, but after such delay and inquiry, and nothing appearing to involve the claimant in wrong, the bounty should be paid. The burden of proving the alleged wrong devolved upon the defendants.

Judgment in favor of the claimant in the sum of $100.  