Case ID: pen-w_1/html/0052-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The COMMONWEALTH against the administrators of PATRICK FARRELY, deceased.
    The account of a public officer, settled by the Auditor General, and approved by the State T feasurer, and duly certified by the Auditor General, to be a true copy from the records of his office, is, prima facia., sufficient evidence to enable the commonwealth to iJecover the balance due by such officer, in a suit brought on his official bond against his surety.
    Writ of error to Crawford county, to remove -the record of a suit, brought in the court of common pleas, by the Commonwealth against the Administrators of Patrick Family, deceased. •
    The defendants intestate, Family, was one of the sureties of Richard Bean, in a bond to the commonwealth, in the sum of four thousand dollars, dated 8th February, 1819, conditioned that the said Bea?i., who had been commissioned .Brigade Inspector of the sixteenth division Pennsylvania militia, by commission dated I5th October, 1818, should faithfully execute the duties of said office, and among other duties, “ should from time to time, well and truly account for all moneys which may come to his hands, in virtue of said office, and pay over any balance which may be ascertained by the proper authorities to be lawfully due by him.” A breach was assigned in the declaration, that money’s had come to the hands of the said Bean, to the amount of six hundred and twelve dollars and forty-five cents, as per account passed by the Auditor General and State. Treasurer, 17th March, 1820, which ho had refused to paj ove)-, &c.
    
    
      Pleas by defendant: That Bean had not broken the condition of the said bond, and covenants performed; replications by plaintiffs and issues.
    On the trial, the commonwealth’s counsel gave in evidence the bond, and the following account duly certified under seal, by the Auditor General, .to be a true copy, taken from the records of his .office, viz:
    
      Richard Bean, Inspector., 2d brigade, 16th division, to the commonwealth of Pennsylvania Dr. For amount of fines returned by his predecessor, William, Clark, late inspector of said brigade viz:
    William Shannon, constable, fines of 1815, $32 50
    Andrew Clark, do, ' do. 1816, 29 95
    George Kelly do. do. ' 88 00
    Abraham Looper, do. do. 1 00
    Thompson Clark, do. do. 38 00
    George Kelly, do. spring do. 1817, 172 00
    Henry Stewart, do. do. 77 00
    Thompson Clark, • do. do. 64 00
    Thompson Clark, do. fall do. 54 00
    Abraham Looper, do. do. 56 00
    $612 45
    Settled and entered, Geo. Bryan,
    
    Auditor General’s office, 17th March, 1820.
    Approved and entered, Richard M. Crain,
    
    Treasury office, 17th March, 1820.
    Here the plaintiff closed: and the court below instructed the jury, “ that the account was not of itself sufficient to shew a forfeiture of ¡the bond.” To which opinion the plaintiff’s counsel excepted, and in this court assigned the same for error.
    
      Derrickson, for the commonwealth.
    After referring to the act of 28th March, 1814, relative to the duties of a Brigade Inspector, and the act of the 30th March, 1811, Purd. Dig. 690, Tit. Public Accounts, which directs the mode of settling officers’ accounts by the Auditor General and State Treasurer, and contending that the account was not only prima facia evidence, but conclusive upon Bean and his surety, was stopped by the court, who desired to hear the counsel on the other side.
    
      S. B. Foster for defendant in error.
    Contended, that as the account consisted entirely of fines and forfeitures, which accrued previous to Bean’s coming into office, it was a charge for which his predecessor only was liable, unless the commonwealth would shew by testimony dehors, the account and certificates of the Auditor ■General, that the. money had actually come into Bean’s hands: that the bond was not to have a retrospective but a prospective operation, and that the bail consequently could not be liable. He cited 9 Wheat. Rep. 680. 9 Cranch Rep. 212. ?
    The court would not hear Derrickson i.n reply, and reversed the judgment of the court below.