The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1878-02-20
treasurer. ], And the same section further
Rides that s.ss
TnE aEnuEiNY ].

provides that
TEE aERGEAST
g shall within the Jurisdiction Of his cor
poratioH exercise the same powers, per-.
form the same duties, and be subject to
penalties touching NIL process Issued by the
Court of such corporation or by the clerk
Of slIcl, court, or otherwise lawfully d..
rected to him, that the sheriff OF a cGdnty
exercises, performs, and is subject to in his
county y & Ss &.
i9, This is the general law with respectto SER
geants OF all the cities and towns. In the.
city OF Richmond the Sheriff, and not the
Sergeant, was charged with the collection Of
State taxes up to March %, 1871 (Acts
1S70-'71, page 253). But as to the duties
and liabilities OF the Sergeant OF the cityF0f
Richmond, beth the general law found In
the Code and the charter OF the city OF Rich
mond bas the following provision: :. g The
said Sergeant shall attend the terms Of the
Court OF Hastings and act as the officer
thereof. He shall in all respects tezcept as
to the collection of tares) haze the same
po,1erS and uthority, and shall peri form the
same duties and be subject to the same lia-
bilities and spenatties and be proceeded
against IN the same manner as sherifs," Z
NOW IT IS PLAIN
that by these enactments the, duties and lia-
bilities OF city and town treasurers being
the same as county treassirefs, and the dti-
ties and liabilities OF city and town SER
geants with the single exception OF the col
lection OF tdIes in the city of Richmond
being the same as those Of sberiffs, it was
the duty OF the City Sergeant to pay and the
City Treasurer TO receive all fines collected
by the former. It follows, therefore, that
81 ct
the Auditor of Public Accounts to compel
him to discharge duty which the law does
not impose upon him, but upon another
officer-to wit, the City Treasurer.
Without, therefore, intimatfng any opin-
ion at this time (because the question does
not arise in this case) whether q party may
discharge a fine by the payment of t' cou-
pons,'' we must discharge the rule against
the Auditor of Public Accounts. because he
is not the public officer upon whom the law
imposes the duty OF receiving fines due the
Commonwealth from the City Sergeant.
MR.. w. L. ROYALL.
1t is proper to remark, however, in JUS
tice to the learned counsel for the Sergeant
of the city Of, Richmond, that there was
such an apparent confusion and conflict in
the various statutes as found in the Code Of
1873 as required judicial construction. It
grew out OF the fact that there were
certain provisions of the Code of 1860
incorporated in the Code OF 1873,
which were enacted before there were
such officers as city and county treasurers
known to our laws and Constitution.
These provisions required the clerks of
courts to repprt list to the Auditor Of
Public Accounts of all fines collected, those
by the clerk paid into court and those for
which executions had issued, and which
contained the following provision, found in
section 20 Of chapter 43 OF the Code Of 1860,
and same in section 20 Of chapter Al OF the
Code of 1878: "Upon the receipt of the list
aforesaid (that is, the list of fines returned
by the clerk) the Auditor Of Public Ac-
counts shall charge the fines therein men,
toned as follows He shall debit the clerk
with all which shall have been paid into
court, and shall debit. the sheriff or other
officer with all which he has received, and
also with the amount, If any, for which an
execution shall have been returnable, !" &c.
From this and s4- s..r..,.,=
OTHER PROVISIONS
following in that chapter it might we'll be
doubted, in the absence Of a critical eXami-
nation Of the other acts heretofore referred
to, whether the Sheriff is not to account
directly@to the Auditor. But it is plain,
upon proper construction of theacts passed
since the adoption OF the present Constitu-
ton, when the officers Of county and city
| treasurers were created, it is the duty Of
the sberiffs and sergeants now to pay fines,
not to the Auditor Of Public Accounts. but
/ to the county and city treasurers. In the
system Of accounting adopted by the Legis-
| lature since the creation Of the offices OF
treas1rers County and city, it is manifest
| that it was intended and would be most
convenient to have the accounting done be-
| tween the Auditor and the treasurers, in
stead Of between both sheriffs or sergeants
and the treasurers with the Auditor. Nor
| is there any such conflict between the pro-
visions 6f the Code OF 1860 above referred
to and the more recent enactments respect
| ing county treasurers. The provision is
that
THE AUDITOR
| shall debit the sheriff or other officer with
the fines received by him. The Auditor
has now but to debit the treasurer of coun-
ty or city with the fines received, instead OF
the sheriff or sergeant. The clerks must
still report to the Auditor the list Of fines,
and he must debit the clerk with such as he
has received and the treasurer OF the coun-
ty, city, or town with what he has received,
instead of debiting the sheriff under the old
law. These acts may therefore both well
stand together, notwithstanding an appa-
rent conflict.
The learned counsel for the petitioner,
perhaps anticipating this judicial construc-
tiof, has upon the eve OF the close OF the
present term filed in this court new Pc
tition asking for q n1dndd,11oS to compel the
CitY Treasurer to receive the coupons which
L. in nf 10
fine imposed upon him. We can only de-
eide one case at time. AT the next term
of the court it will consider the case as it
may be made then upon the record.
Whatever questions may be properly
raised in the new case will be deliberately
and carefully considered and promptly and
firmly determined. n;
AS to the case now before us, we are con-
strained to say no case is made for the issu-
ance Of a nadadan,us against the Auditor OF
Public Accounts, and the rule against the
Auditor must be discharged.
The opinion OF the Court was written and
delivered by Judge Christiun.
THE DOUBLE FUNDING Special Joint
Committee on the Double Fund ding met yes
terday morning and perfected their report
by adding to it resolution that the Attor-
ney-General institute suit, ii in his iudg-
ment it may be desirable, to recover from
any officer or his s,ireties, or other person
liable, the amount lost by the State by the
double-funding fraud. The report so
amended was presented to the House yes
terday afternoon by MIR. Johnston Of Giles,
and ordered to be printed.
A MERITED CONFERENCE.-THE regi1ental