Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1872-09-12

evidence than copy of the bond. Upon
this issue the judgment Is to be final.
The other case is where the COmptrol-
lers books contain the evidence Of the
amount OF the delinquency. In that case
Inc authenticated copy from the Comp
trollers books Is made prima fscie evidence
OF the amount due the State. Upon the
production of this evidence with copy Of
the bond, 1t is made the imperative duty Of
the court to render judgment against the de-
llnquent and for the amount appearing due
from the statement of the Comptroller.
The language ofthe law is explicit, emphatic
and mandatory-"the court shall render
judgmen - n not only so, but for the
specific amount stated by the Comptroller.
This language manifestly contemplates
no trial of an issue as to the
amount due. But how is this to
be reconclled with previous sections which
make the Comptroller's statement priBlG
fdeie evidence Of the amount? This neces-
sarily implies that the statement Is not con-
elusive evidence, but that the presumption
may be rebutted by proof. But it is OBJ
served that the judgment ordered to be en-
tered, Ii not declared TO be a final judg-
ment, as In tie case where no statement is
RAOAAohO4s ~ 70 ODcCA fC0 t1d0 ny
sec 742, the Comptroller is TO settle with
the delinquent collector upon the basis OF
the judgment, and on that settlement he Is
70 allow ali bona tide claims due the col
lector. The judgment therefore which
Is based on the statement is not
conclusive against the collector. The only
fair Interpretation Of the ssveral provisions
is, that while the statement of the Comp
troller is only prinlG fdcie evidence Of the
amount due, it is to be held by the court
sufficient for the rendition OF judgment
for the amount shown by the statement,
which shall not be controverted before the
court, but which may be controverted be-
fore the Comptroller on settlement Of the
judgment with the Comptroller. The eff
feet Of the policy thus established is, to
withdraw from the court the settlement Of
the accounts ofdelinquens collectors and to
turn them over, after judgment, to the settle
ment Of the financial officer, whose bust
ness 1t is to examine and adjust al claims
and accounts against the State, and whose
official books furnish the proper evidence
Tor such settlement. The policy was to
send the delinquent Collector to the Cnmp-
troller's Office for settlement, and not 10 re-
quire the Comptroller to attend the courts
10 The several counties, with his books, for
the purpose of contesting issues with the
delinquent officers. Whether this was good
policy or not, is not question for our dis
cussion. We find the policy so written in
the statutes, and our duty is to declare and
enforce it.
Upon our construction Of the law, there
fore, it was the duty of the Circuit Judge,
upon the motion Of the Attorney General
and the production Of the authenticated
statement Of the Comptroller and certified
copy OF the Collectors bond, at once togive
judgment against the defendants for the
amount shown to be due by the statement;
this judgment, upon application to the
Comptroller, to be subject to such credits
az, upon settlement, the Comptroller should
find the Collector was entitled to, and for
any balance an execution would issue.
But the question now presents itself, can
this court proceed to render the judgment
which the court below ought to have rem
dered? We are Of opinion tLab the case is
not before US in a shape to All horize us to
render judgment. DefendaI IS interposed
a motion which precluded Tue Attorney
General from offering the evidence on
which he claimed q Judgment. The evil
dence, though on file, vas not offered or
used, and could not be until the prelimina-
ry motion was disposed of. The judgment
Of the court on that motion ended the case
and left the evidence on which the Attorney
General intended to rely, outside Of the
case. 1t is not brought before US by bill Of
exceptions, or otherwise than as it is copied
into the transcript as having been fled in
the case. Besides, the defendants have =
right, upon proper reason shown, to require
the production OF the original bond of the
Collector on the trial. We have not ex-
amined the terms or conditions Of the bond
copied with the record, as it is not
before us for any purpose, and it Is
not intended to prejudice the defendants as
to any defence arising Hereunder to which
they may be entitled under the provisions
Of the Code.
This probably alludes to The restrictive
provisions Of sections 773 to 778 Of the
Code .-.--..-..
For these reasons We are bound to refuse
the judgment asked for here, but we re-
verse the judgment Of the Circuit Judge
and remand the cause to be proceeded
in as indicated in this opinion.
NICHOLSON, Judge.