Case ID: h-mch_3/html/0004-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

OCTOBER TERM, 1790,
    Thomas Gash against John Taylor.
    THIS was an appeal from Harford county court. It was an action of assumpsit, brought by Taylor against Gash. The declaration contained counts for sundry matters chargeable in account, money had and received, and money laid out and expended. An account was exhibited, charging the defendant with the treble tax in the years 1777, 1778 and 1779.
    By the bills of exceptions taken at the trial, it appears:
    
      First exception. The plaintiff offered evidence that the defendant was a rionjuror; also offered in evidence, copies of the assessment lists for the above-mentioned years, copies of which were delivered by the commissioners of the tax to the plaintiff, who was duly appointed collector of the public and county assessments for the said years; that on the final settlement of the collector with the commissioners, the collector was charged with the amount of the treble tax, due from nonjurors until the passage of the suspension law in fuly, 1779 ; that the commissioners transmitted an account of the balance due from the collector to the treasurer. The plaintiff offered in evidence, a certificate from the treasurer, that the plaintiff had discharged his account as collector, for the above-mentioned years, agreeably to the returns made by the commissioners.
    The defendant prayed the court’s direction to the jury, that if there be not proof to satisfy them that the plaintiff did pay and expend money as mentioned in the declaration, at the instance and request of the defendant, and that the evidence offered was not, in law, sufficient testimony to maintain the issue.
    
      The Court refused to give the direction prayed for by the defendant.
    
      Second exception. The plaintiff, to prove the defendant was a nonjuror, and subject to the treble tax, offered in evidence a paper which was proved by one of the commissioners of thé tax for Harford county, to be a list of persons made out by the clerk of the said commissioners, and the said commissioners, from the list of non-jurors, returned by the magistrate of the said count)»-, and constable’s lists of the said county, and which paper so offered, was proved to be in the hand-writing of the said clerk, but not signed by him, or the said commissioners, nor in any manner attested by the said clerk. It was also proved that the said clerk was dead, and that he was a sworn officer, and that the said paper was given to the collector as a list of nonjurors, by the commissioners, to direct the said collector in the collection of the tax. The defendant objected to this paper as improper testimony for the jury.
    
      The Court were of opinion it was legal evidence.
    
      Third exception. The plaintiff offered in evidence, the certificate given by the treasurer, which is mentioned in the first exception, and which was admitted to be in the hand-writing of the treasurer. The defendant objected to it; but The Court were of opinion it was proper evidence;
    
      Smith and Hollingsworth, for the appellant.
    
      M'Mechen, for the appellee.
   The general court affirmed the judgment of the county court.