The Portland daily press., 1871-06-05
/ nd Of the Legal Proceedings against
Peck's BOndsmen.
REVIEW OF THE CASE.

nd of the Legal Proceedings against
Peck's BOndsmen.
REVIEW OF THE CASE.
estate of Maine VS.. Benjamin d. Peck ct
:s. Exceptions sustained Replication ad-
idged good" Such was the concise news
/ aper report OF the decision by the supreme
Court, at the late law term held at Augusta,
OF one of the NEST protracted land most
jmportant suits in the judicial an
mails of Maine. 1t so well deserves
place among our local causes celebres, and
the events connected with the defacaton OF |
State Treasurer Peck have 50 genuine his !
tolic interest, that we are certain that our |
readers will be glad to have their memory le-
treshed by concise review of the whole
matter The decision just rendered by the
court after ten years OF litigation refers to the
SUIT AGAINST THE sURETIES OF 1858,
the bondsmen of 1859 having settled their Ii
ability withoua a suit. The sureties OF 1898
having neglected to adjust their debt with
the commissioners appointed by the LeSisla-
ture, Attorney General Josiah Fl. Drummond
at length brought suit against them on the
10Th of January, 1861. During the same
year it was agreed that The various pleas filed
by the defendants should be withdrawn and
the case tried on the plea of non est .factun,
the sureties declaring that the bond was not
their deed and that it was not sealed at the
time they signed it. This. issue was lot tried
till April, 1866, when it was brought before
jury; Hon. John A. Peters, Attorney General
for no Stafa Inn,
this city for the defendants. The verdict of
the jury was adverse 70 the defendants, it be-
ing found that the bond was sealed when
signed, but motion Tor new trial led to
still further delay This motion was denied,
whereupon the case passed on exceptions
INTO THE LAW COURT
and in due time the exceptions were overrul-
ed. But this was not tile end. BY agree
ment OF the parties the sureties, whose de-
Tense on technical point had broken down,
were allowed to plead anew. This time they
defended on the ground that Peck had never
broken the obligation of his bond. This defense
might seem too preposterous to be set up by rep
utabe legal practitioners did we not remem-
Der that in 1860 the Legislative investigating
committee, of which Hon. j. II. Drummond
was chairman on the part of the Senate and,
Hon. j. G. Blaine on the part of the House,
found that though the Treasurer had largely
Incorporated the States funds in 1858, the
deficit was not chargeable to any great extent
on his sureties oil that year, since he had been
able by means of accommodations obtained
from banks and by other means to replace The
most of the funds he had misused, and, had
he not been reelected in 1859, no loss would
have occurred to the State. From the view of
the case taken at that time, but afterward
revised by the board of Commissioners made
up largely of members of the same commit
tee, all but about fourteen thousand dollars of
the entire deficit of $93,924 was chargeable up
on the bondsmen of 1859. The State filed a
replication to this plea, setting forth that the
principal in the bond had received money be-
longing to the State for which he had not ac.
counted. And here the case went for the mo-
ment to another tribunal. On the LIST day of
March, 1867, resolve was passed by the Leg
islature empowering the Governor and Coun-
Gil to adjust with the defendants their liabii-
ty on the Treasurer's bond for the year 1868.
with full power to settle and apportion the
same as should be just and equitable, and up.
on adjustment by sureties to discharge them.
But on the day appointed for the hearing
there was no appearance by the bondsmen or
their counsel Here the matter rested till 1860,
when the Legislature authorized Attorney
General Frye to refer the case to a
BOARD OF REEEpEES
consisting of A. P. Morrill,, Philip Eastman
and A. Coburn. But as the States Attorney
was about to make the reference, the de(en-
dants suddenly filed a demurrer TO the
States replication. the effect of which was to
stop all proceedings under the reference and
~~--1 a. ter
TO THE LAW COURT,
the full bench heard arguments
rer by Attorney General Reed
and John Rand ESQ, for the
bondsmen, but it was not till the Both of Nav,
1871, that the opinion of Judge Barrows fay-
oraele to the State, concurred in by the other
Justices was rendered.
THE FINAL RESULT
demurrer being, as we understand it. an
implied admission of the facts stated in auy
pleading, we suppose that there can be no
further proceedings after it is adiudged bad.
and it only remains for the court to enter
formal Judgment for the State for the full
amount claimed In this case the amount
claimed is S39,231. The accrued interest will
bring the whole amount up to about AGA
ooo We do not know that any property has
ever been attached in this suit. Though the
case is one of great hardship for the bonds.
men. the gratitude of the people at large is dine
10 Attorney.General Reed for the persever-
ehce and vIgor with which he has followed
IN matter in which they are so deeplv in
terested. 1t certainly cannot have been an
agreeable duty, but it has been faithfully per-
formed. The sureties on the bond of 1873
are Neal Dow, Ezra Carter, Jr., Isaac Over.
Allen Haines, Thomas Abbott, J,B. Chm.
mings and William Chase.
THE BOND OF 1859.
Inc pondsmen of 1859 paid without
suit the sum of $4,000. They appeared in
April, 1850, before the Commissioners an
pointed by the Legislature and settlement
was effected without difficulty. These sure.
Ties were Neal Dow, j. B. Cummings. s. G..
Chase, S. L. Hersey, Walter Brown. G. O
RAINING, Henry Hill, Michael Schwartz and
Charles ID. Gilmore. We believe that the
sums now paid Or secured by the State as in. |
nemnity for Peck's defalcaton are all en-.
bracei in the following statement:
Total deficit, On, 90. |
OBTAINED from bondsmen o, 1885, VT 600 s''''z4
secured " " 1879 200
Ra,,E p,o
Dahhs &C. 1l,700
s7,7sl