Summary

John McLean Gratiot v. United States (45 U.S. 80…

Major McNeil, a witness, and who is a civil engineer, states, on being requested 'to look at the account of Charles Gratiot, hereto annexed or appended, and state whether the services therein charged belong to civil engineering or military engineering, or to either,' answered,-'I should say that they would be classed under neither. They do not belong to the duties of the engineer, either civil or military.'
Captain Talcott held a commission in the Engineer Corps, from August, 1818, to September, 1836, and he states, that while in the corps for extra services he received extra allowances.
Source: Wikisource

John McLean Gratiot v. United States (45 U.S. 80…

In their second instruction, the court informed the jury that the defendant was not entitled to any credit for commissions on disbursements on account of appropriations for fortifications, as charged by him. Of this item, the only evidence in the cause is that furnished by the transcript introduced by the United States, as the principal evidence on which the defendant is charged, and the evidence thereby furnished, is not sufficient to authorize the jury to allow the defendant the credit claimed.
Source: Wikisource

John McLean Gratiot v. United States (45 U.S. 80…

It is admitted, that so far as the duties of the chief of engineers were regulated by law, or by regulations of the War Department, they may be considered as matter of law for the court, but much parol evidence was heard as to the appropriate duties of that officer, and to ascertain what part of the services charged for came within such duties. Now these were matters of fact for the jury, and not for the court.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature