Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1820-12-09

against him. or on public account, coald not
be known or stated.
lust conclusions could be drawn from the
books that en- the LIST of October 1918. when
according TO them there ought to have been
in The treasury the sum ot........S S0o,T02 9S
There was in both banks where by
Laws the idle money was directed
TO be kept, oniy......-.... ......lH 0l0 IL
Making difference of........2i2 7S3 81
AID that on the 18th of Jan. 1919.
(the date, of the bond) when accord.
i'm. TO the same backs there ought
10 have been in the treasury tue
sum of................ .O9I .Sll SS
There was in both banks only the
sum Of............... ........... .f0O $50 13
Making difference .29l Col ID
To shew that these differences could not he
accounted for, mn the presumption that the
sums OF S PIP 7S3 81 and S POI COL Is mgat
have been in the treasury office itself, They in-
tr0duced a clerk in that Office. who proved
That il was not usual TO keep there more than
$ $500. very rarely as much as $40 900, aud ne
yer since he knrw il Covering the time in
question: as much as S 30. 600.
This evidence the defendants contended prov
ed that there was at The dates before mentioned,
and by parity of reasoning, during all the
intervals, at least S 300 600 less in the treasury
than 10y The treasury books there appeared
10 be
treasury on the 18th OF January 1919 as thus
Gsc.rtaiaed WAS taken. and the suBis received
up 10 the 18th of Jan. 1920 were added and the
disbursements tor The same period deducted,
together with the sum inrDed over by Preston
to dis successor in Office, the halaucc in the
treasury |as actually more hl s $50 900 than
VI ought to be so that II would appear that
during te year 1919 20 the Commonwealth in
stead OF beiu. l0s-r. had been reimbursed
that sum on accnnut OF prior Declarations.
To the admission of ali this evidence on the
part OF the defendants, 10 discharge themselves
from this motion, the counsel for the COM
monwealth objected aud moved the court
LIT Upnn the facts III thi. cause rs stated
TO exclude the evidence so offered by The de
fPnd1nts from tne Confederation OF HE Jury so
far as The same is offered 10 exonerAte the de-
feEdAuts from the balance of S S3 009 80 APP.
pcatlng from the reports OF The treasurer aud
the Legislative committee OF the 18Th January
1910 aud thsireasurv books from October Isl
1878, 10 the time OF Pres;Ou's resignation,t TO lie
due"
Ny" Upon the same facts 10 insirnct the Jury,
shat so Tar as the treasury books aud the re-
ports oi The treasurer and committee as atore-
said shew a balance due 10 the Commonwealth
by the defendant Preston at the time OF his
resignation the same is binding on the defen =.
dants in this motion, iilisiuudins the facts
proved by The defendants"
Bird. " 1 o IpSituct the jury, what is Tie law
arising on the facts aforesaid"
These propositions were very ahly AVID ella
boIaiely discussed by the counsel on both sides
but IL wOnld be idle TO attempt even sketch
OF an argument which occupied three Whole
DAYS.
Iu genera.t the counsel for he Commonwealth
cOniended, that the treasury books aud the
reports aforesaid, were conclusive on Preston
aud his securiies. and their verify could not
be denied. f0ai Preston hy proving HE ia,si.
~ OF The books, would fix np0n himself IA fraud
contrary 10 The maxim OF the civil law that
" memo sanstMpitudincm SHam 0udiendus est. F"
nat by ihis matter IN pas, both Preston aad
M securities were O,ped from dlschdr ing
themselves from the present demand by Prov
ing prior deialcsiiQRs: Thar il would lead 10
the mos, dangerous consequences, If the sIaie.
inents OF public officer, directed by law TO
keep books aud bound by his duiy and oath to
keep ihem truly, could he contradic;ed by pa
role evidence ct this character, &c.
GA The second point they Argued, that all.
hltiing the facts proved they did not in law
contradict the Commemorative violence, that
tie sum OF GiS,ii2 % was actually in Tie
treasury al tie dale OF the bend Oh The iSti vi
January 1919.
hat although the money was neither in
bank "or IN the treasury Ofice, il might have
been III PrestoH's own possession, and If So
II was IN law still i'll tie treasury.
That The money being in bank TO his pri
vate credit did not of Itself Constitute an
embeZziemeni, for The law only directed that
the idle mouey should he placed in bank
without directing 10 whose credit.
These aud several other positions they Illus
Uatsd an" enforced by great variety OF arcu
ID
equal zeal, Industry and learning by the oppo-
site counsel.
The Court were of opinion on the first po int.
tiat as the Commonwealth herself was obliged
IN ORDER 10 ascertain The amount Ot her claim
10 prove PrenOn's turpitude by shes wing that
Tess was I'D Tie Treasury Than ought TO have
been there, the maxim cited above did not
apply, Tor thai the evidence Offered was not
totr frand upon Preston; bnt TO tocate il in
HE year when it actually took place That the
DOCKS OF Tile Treasury aud the reports afore-
SAD, were admissible evidence. but not conci,..
S.re IKE deeds or records TO estop parties aud
thdt the evidence OF Tile defendants should be
received.
HE Court were also of opinion aud instruct.
cd the Jury, that the defendants were liable
Only for The sums which actually came TO
Pfeston's hands. during the last term OF Office
aha tliat lot embellishments before that time :,
they we're not liable. unless The sums embez-
sury.
Under this opinion and instru ciion, the jury
fouuu verdict Tor. the defendants who had
PLEADED, aud against Preston who lad not as
FessIng the damage TO one cent. The judg.
mentwaS entered in favor OF an the defendants,
notwithstanding The verdict against one, on
Tue principle that in Joint action on contract.
~ verdict is found in favor of either defen-
uant on plea going To the merits OF the ac-
Others
During the progress Of the trial, a collateral
poiht arose respecting the admission OF an of,
rce cory si deed in evidence
va tue part OF the Commomwe altl, a COPY of
q ueeu from Preston TO certain truSters for
the security aud indemnity OF some OF his Sc
cullles. was offered. The deed had been re-
coFatd ~ tie Hastings Court Of tie CITY of
Richmond, on certificate by Two magistrates
according TO law OF Prestons acknowledgment:
aud the csaginal had been delivered 20 Gem
H. PRESTON one OF the preseat defendants. On
fhe Gay That the jury were Unparalleled a no.
Wee was delivered TO this defendant TO nr,
ince TIE original, aud the Commonwealth.
COUNSEL stated ~ court thai they WISHED M.