Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-07-03

and subject So such rorsion and control.
more TO be regarded than the mere private ac-
| counts, ofprivate and unsworn mdiyi duals III
4 IN the case of Moody vs.. Thruston, Stra. 40 ,
statement of balances made by commission
crs under an act of parliament, was held to he
conclusive evidence, even although one of the
parties iitigant had had no time allowed him tn
prove his accounts, much more ought the
treasurer, under all the provisions and preca,l-
tons of our laws, to be Sermiltcdto bind HIM
SELF Ii in the case cfStevens VS.. Coburn, end
Call 40, the certificate ofthe land commission
crs was held to be final, and tut even against
an infant, much more ought Preston own GER
lilcate IF We may so express ourselvcs) to be
held to he final, against himself 1t is OF no ac-
cocnt tnaf, IN that case, the land law declared
That the certificate should be final There is no
uincrence between an act containing such
declaration, and one affected by principles.
and containing provisions, which irresistibly
compel us to come to similar conclusion.
Inc establishment of these Books as con-
elusive evidence, IN such cases, while il
depryes that officer ola great advantage he
would nave over the commonwealth, if
he We're permitted by his clerks, or Others,
to falsiiy, III after times his own items soj.n,nlv
entered by him in his books, is further called
Tor by the necessity of acting by general rules.
IN such cases; and that policy is supported bv
several anaiogies in our laws. Under the pro-
VISIONS OF the act for registering deeds, no man
Is permitted to aver an ignorance of Il deed
which is duly recorded. So under the cove.t
law, no man IS allowed to aver his Ignorance.
thatanother had entered for theland in DISPUTE.
upon the books of the surveyor of the coun.
lty;as was decided by the court of appeals in
the case of holland vs.. Cromwell. Both
these provisions go upon the ground of the
~ - A.
general ruies,lt these cases and ofreferrnr to
public documents, which are accessible TO All
instead OF leaving every case in respect of ey-
idence to stand on its own bottom. They are.
hoth wisely calculated To prevent frauds and
perJufles, ana 10 cut up and prevent infnite
disputes and litigation. In these last cnses
particular Wischiefs may, rerchaucc, happen,
but they are submitted To as the lesser or.yiis
and i'll ttvour ofthe general provisions of acts Of
great public convenience and utility. In rela
ton 10 the treasurer, III the case before us, no
possible inconvenience can result to him, hut
from his own negligence or the corruption of
ms clerks. In the last case he must have hi,
| remedy over against them, or against those
who are responsible for them. lin the case
OF AN ordinary deed or bond, a man i; estop-
| ped 10 deny matters contained in such deed
or bond, from the mere circumstance of hav-
inS annexed scroll thereto, much more ought
The treasurer TO be concluded in the case be-
fore us. Being sworn officer he ought t.
lie bound by books rendered under that san,,
Ton he ought 10 be hound by books soemnIy
kept by him, under all the checks s. precautions
too, established by the wisdom OF our laws.
lille there is 10 necessity for it, neither is the
commonwealth in any condition to defend ar
sei', against innumerable clainant; brinsin,r
perhaps, suspicious witnesses to invaIidatc tb,.
solemn entries made upon the books of the
treasury. No conceivable degree of diligence
ON The PartOf The officers of the commonwealth
could protect herinterests, if these general cr-
terra were TO be departed from, and an infini-
tude OF litigation opened upon her.
These books thus conclusive against the
treasurer, are also conclusive against his sure
ties. Ira Judgment against him is To bind
'thein, So also Is the evidence Oh which that
Judgment Is rendered-ln the case of Erax-
ION VS. Cialb. Especial court of appeals, see LIST,
Wash. 81, and Calls manuscript reports more.
at large it was decided, that to fix the amount
ofan executors liability, the action must be
brought against him, and that the recovery
against him will binh his sureties 1t is also
sad III that case that if 4 agrees to paw TO B
| what ( ewes him, he cannot call upon A I'm
III ne establishes his demand in suit against
= the proper party TO defend the suit So il
was decided in Che case Of GreensiGes VS.. Ben
son. Atkins 2i9, tlgat suretes are botInd.as to
tue amount, by Judgment rendered against
the principal that it Is immaterial if that
Judgment were even rendered without de-
fence on the part Of the principal for tilattha
SacTs rathera cOnsciousncss that Tie prncin,l
had no defence to make: The court also deci
| ded IL t!Iat case, that It would not take the
whole account ocer again at the instance of the
sretes,a That the case otthe sureties is not at
ali better ;"Jr as thu verdict was found AGAINST
= The principal, who was the proper person to
try 1t, It would BE- hard 10 have the SAINT.
matter triei OUer GgGiR, in as many actions
as the sure!ics please" We entirely concur
| in this reasoning. Sureties are not to be Der
united to try over again, cases already deci-
ded against the principal nor, when tried a.
Sainst them In the first instance, to avail them
selves OF evidence which the principal himself
would be Inhibited from llsing.--These autho-
rites are conclusive to shaw that the surt.fies
stand on comnon Foundation with the prin-
cipal,
Tie counsel for the appelees have repeat
eddy told us, that as the amount OF the actual
deialcatlon was in ISSUE between the parties
they ought to be allowed 70 prove that issue
on their part. They ought not to be allowed
to prove II, by any thing but legal testimony.
Their position, in The latfn.le in which il is Ia
ken, would equally so to let in hearsav testi-
nlony, or dispositions not upon oath. The
Judges ought not to SURRENDER their province
OF liihibiting the Introduction ofWeg0itestimo-
ny. In tile opinion OF this court the parol
evidence offered by those who stand in the
shoes of the treasurer, TO invaIldate and set
aside his books, is as inadmissibIe as The hear
say or unsworn testimony Just mentioned
The books ofthc treasury being thus held
to be conclusive evidence, both as to the prin
clpal and the sureties, we come TO apply them
to the case before us. We readily admit that
there ought to be separate bonds for each and