Marshall County Republican., 1866-01-04
Judge Made Law. What IL has
Cost the State

Judge Madc Law. w hat IL has
Cost the state.
II any one is not satisfied with Democratic rule
and Democratic Supreme Judges in Indiana. and
willing to dispense with both for all time to come
let him read the following from the lndianapoli.
Journal Of 4 recent date:
The learned editor Of the Herald. and ex-Judge
of the Supreme Court, does not take kiadly our al
lusons TO the necessity under which the Genera,
Assembly found itself to provide legislative rene.
dies Tor the reckless laws enacted by the Supreme
court while he was It's ecDtral umnary. He is
especially sensitive in reference 10 the cage OF Pep
per rs. the State, reported in 22d Indiana Report,
where the Judge made Law" OF the Supreme
Court, lost S2o,OOO to the State, and relieved a
lot OF brother Democrats from paying that sum,
which was justly due to the State treasury bv ,he e
sureties ot the defaulIing and absconded Demo.
cratic treasurer oil Franklin county. The est OF
that decision was, that County Treasurer elect,
who Is bound by law to give a bond, with sureties
to the acceptance Of the Board of County Com
mi.soners, before lie can enter upon the duties of
ms Once, Is the agent OF such board in procuring
signatures to his own bond; that the Board of
Commissioners are nts OF the State for recciy
ing the bond, and that all the lies and forceries
told ard perpetrated by such officer elect 10 in.
duce his surees TO sign his bond are the lies and
iorgerics OF the State, and lis agents. the Board OF
County Commissioners; and that, after the bond
has been accepted, the Treasurer has collected nm
the taxes, put them in his pocket, and run away,
after the most approved Democratic STYLE, the sure
ty, or aGy number OF sureties, may avoid liabli.
ty on the bond. by showing that the rxscally
treasurer-not the County Board, or anybody au.
thorlzed by II TO saw any thing in the premises
represented to them that before he presented the
bond for approval he would get certain other par
ties TO sign it as CO sureties.
There was no prctensc that the County Com.
missioners had any knowledge OF any such state.
nents 10y the officers elect, who used such means
to get signatures TO his bond; no proof TINT the
Commissioners even knew that he was attemptino
TO hle his bond, until IL was brought to them for
approval, when, from their knowledge of the men
whose signatures we're appended, aud being salts.
fed that they were good Tor the penalty of the
bond, they approved it.
We cannot, oil course, quote the opinion of the
Court, as Ike all Cases where n great iniQuity is
to be sanctihed by judicial adroitness it is very
!ons but any of our readers who are curious 20 &c
how law can be made by Supreme Judges, and
very poor law at that, find the beginning OF
the paniul argument on page 400 of the volume
referred to, and the snd-weIl they will read until
they are tired, before finding that.
The. decision IS substantially this: The name OF
one surety WAS forged, and he was properly di
charged. To portion OF the other surietics who
did sign the bond. the Treasurer elect reprcseucd
that he would get other names upon it before he
delivered II 10 the Board OF Commissioners and
because he did not procure those other names, the
court held that batch Of suretes free from abili,
Another class OF suretes signed unconditionallv, :,
without being influenced by any msstatements or
promises of the principal in the bond but the bond
Was held as void to them, because some Others
had been deceived. Not one Of the flithful wa.
held liable, and the State cons equsnty lost s25,
0O0
/ But this was not the worst effect of the deci,.
1 ion, though that Was bad enough; but il enabled
every rascal who might hereafter be elected to Of
ice, to save his sureties harmless by arranging
with them that he should promise them, before
witnesses, to get an additional name his bond
before delivering it, and then they could let hin
90 and steal as much ss he. wanted and coolly as
onish the financial officers o the State by showing
this nice private arrangement rs u defense, nhcl
sued upon the bond.
To make clean job in ths Pepper case, tn.
court had 10 decide:
lst. That the county board was the agent Of III.
| State in taking the bond.
i ID. To disregard the we'll settled doctrine iha
an agent appointed 10 execute trust. can not
without the consent OF his principal, dcyolve tha
agency on another.
Sd. That although the county board bad nc
power to make promifes to, terms with, partc.
proposing To 60 on Tsasurer's bond, vet they
might appoint party interested against the counts
and against the State to do that sort Of dickerinS
and THAI the State would be bound thereby.
4th. That a. the county board aIponted nj
agent to asss, the treasurer in getting sureties
his official bond, and never thought Of such .
thing, the court would hold the treasurer to be
their agent. and the agent of the State, in living
to portion of the parties who went on his bond
and iergin. the name of another, although the
proven facts were Just The reverse.
H.
ing, who ought to suffer IN such case as this, the
public, which was not party to any arrangement,
between the Treasurer and his Suretes. or the lat
ter, who signed their to his bond and lett il
IN his possession TO be presented for approval a,
his pleasure, relying on his promise that he would
not 30 present u until certain other signatures
we're obtansdl There can be but one answer to
shis question. He was the agent Of the parties
with whom he thus negotiated, and when they suit
fsred him to take the bond away with their sigma.
tures upon it, they gave him authority to use the
paper Tor the purpose contemplated.
10 prove this We will cite other cases decided
by the same Supreme Court. In Holland rs.
Hatch. XII. Indiana. p. 500. the following principle
Is laid down: "Therc can be no doubt that il a
person indorses or signs blank paper or note,
and intrusts 1t TO another that he may raise mon
ey upon it, he aufhorizes that other person TO rendt,
h,m hat!e IN any amount, and at any time he mo,
pIedse. There is no restriction in the implied au.
thorty in such q case. Ben rs The State Bank
!. Blkf 4o6, and other authorities there cited
Many other authorities might be cited to the same
SO spake the Supreme Court of Indiana in
leoo, and 1t said truly. that 'many other authori
ties might be cited to the same effect" The
princlpis OF those numerous decisions is, that for
the safety OF trade aud commerce, negotiable pa
per shall be protected in the hands OF holden
innocent OF fraud, and without notice Of extrane
Gus facts which would otherwise be q defense
against It, 1t will readily occur to the taxpayers
OF the State that the safety and protection of the
public treasury. the inviolabiy Of thu multiplied
public funds in the hands of hundreds Of public Of.
hcers, ought to be object of mu IN solicitude
10 the courts as the sanctity Of note Of $500, pay
able IN bank. but 50 did not lbink the Supreme
Court OF Indiana in 1863.
With one more quotation from n case decided
BY Judge Perkins, we close this article. In Second
Indiana Reports. page COZ. we find case almos
precisely like that which we have criticised, but in
which the decision was squarely the other way.
suit was brought in the Clarke Circuit Court
against Carr, Parr and Athon-the former princi.
pail and the latter alleged sureties on bond Civ
en- to James Boyer, School Commissioner, to Sc
cure loan from the School Fund. As to Parr. il
was proved TO be forgery, and Athon claimed
that When he signed the bond, PARIS name was
on it; that he signed simply co-surety with
Z arr, when the latter was not in fact liable; and
that this circumstance amounted 20 fraud upon
him. To this defense the Court said: .'Had il
been shown that the School Commissioner who
took the bond presented il to Athon for signature
| With the name Of Par already upon it a. such
n .sioIf kope k,rn rro.rrIrd n m