Beaufort Republican. [volume] (Beaufort, S.C.) 1871-1873, 1873-02-27
IMPORTANT OPINION OF JUeEE
MiHRR,

S@~f
The State of South Carolina, Ec. Re-
latnne, w. j. Kerdier against George
Holmes, County Treasurer Of Beau
fort. County.
Upon application of the relator, w. J
Verdier, a rule was issued requiring the
respondent, George Holmes, as treasurer
of Beaufort county, to show cause why a
peremptory mandamus should not be or
dered, to compel payment Of two orders
upon the county treasurer of said county,
held and owned by the relator-one for
sixty dollars, drawn by the county Audi
tor, and approved by the chairman ofthe
board of county commissioners, dated the
10th August 1872, and payable to A. +.
Hall or order-and the other, fifty dol
lars, drawn by the board of county COM
missioners, dated the 9th October, 1872,
and payable to p L. W., or bearer
which Said orders were, as it is avowed,
presented for payment to the respondent
or treasurer, on the 9th February, 1873,
and payment thereof refused, although
at the time of the demand there were in
the treasury funds more than sufficient
for the payment of the same"
The respondent, in his sworn return to
said rule, sets forth the several grounds
on which he rests his justification for re-
fusing to pay the said orders, one only of
which, in the view taken of the case, it
Is deemed necessary to notice.
Among other things the return states,
that the respondent 'did not assume
the duties of treasurer of said county un-
til on or about the 10th day Of December
1872, after the date Of the issuing of said
checks, and that at the time of the de.
mand for the payment of said checks, he
had in his hands no funds other than
such as were collected by him under the
Joint resolution of the general assembly
to levy tax for the current fiscal year
and that this respondent did not receive
any funds whatever belonging to said
county from his predecessor in office, +.
L. Wilder"
1t is proper to add that the two orders
in question were exhibited at the hear
ing, and appear to have been drawn on
+. Z. Wilder, county treasurer of said
county.
The return was not traversed.
The manner in which county funds are
to be disbursed is plainly prescribed
by statute. The county treasurer is
required to report to the board OF
county commissioners, on the tif'
teenth day of each month, the
amount offunds collected for and on ac-
count of the county, and the character of
such funds. Genl. St. Oh. XIII, Sec. II,
p. II. The board have power at their
annual meetings to examine, settle and
allow all accounts chargeable against the
county, and to draw orders on the County
treasurer for the same-but with the ex-
press restriction: that they ''shall not
draw any order upon the county treasurer
until after the monthly return Of the
treasurer shall have been made, nor un-
less he has the funds in the treasury to
pay the same;" and, further, it is made
the duty of the board to inform the treas
urer of the orders drawn, in whose favor,
and the order in which they are drawn.
GenI. st. Oh. XIX, Sec. 9, p. l35.
These provisions of law are clearly man
datory, and not directory merely, orders
can be drawn only after the treasurer S
monthly report is in, showing funds sub
icct to draft. The treasurer should be
promptly notified of the orders drawn
against the funds so reported-and then
the money in his hands becomes specif-
cally appropriated, and must be retained
to meet the orders when presented. An
over-issue of orders is not possible if the
requirements of the law are observed,
and it is manifest that these provisions of
the statute were designed 10 prevent the
issue of orders in excess of funds in hand
subject to the same. 1t must be assumed
that the orders in this case were drawn
IN conformity with law Omnia praesuna
uatu RITZ esse actu-and hence, that +. Il.
Wilder, then county treasurer, had duly
made his monthly reports, showing funds
to the credit of the county, that the Or
ders were drawn upon these funds, and
that the treasurer was duly notified Of
the same. 1t is not alleged that demand
for payment was ever made on treasurer
Wilder; and, for aught that appears, he
now holds the sums appropriated
for payment of the orders, and would
pay the same upon presentation. If in
deed it appeared that he had transferred
the money to his successor, this respond
ent, or, even, that he had paid over to
the latter gross fund upon final settle
ment, mandamus might lie to compel the
respondent to pay the orders But the
return states expressly that the respond
ent has not received any county funds
whatever from his said predecessor.
This view of the case woald be fatal to