The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-03-17
TREASURER MILLER WRONG.
The Superior Court Decides that He
Cannot Withhold the Gty's Funds,
And Directs Him TO Make Monthly Settle
ments-The School Board Is Entitled to
but Two Annual Adjustments.

Judge Taylor yesterday gave an opinion from
the full Superior Court bench relative to County
Treasurer Millers claim that he is required to
account to the city for its funds in his hands
only after semi-annual settlements with the
auditor. In other Words that all money collect
ed by him on the city duplicate is to remain at
his disposal until the settlements occur If
money is needed from the treasury before that
time it can only be borrowed from him at what
ever interest he Is pleased to ask. The city Of
fciais contend that the Winter bill passed by the
last Legislature abolishing the Office OF city
treasurer and placing its duties upon the county
treasurer, did not repeal the old law to its pro-
visions requiring the city treasurer to report to
the city clerk monthly the condition of the var
ious funds. Mr.. Miller, on the advice of his at
torneys, resisted this claim, and the city has
been compelled to borrow from him her own
money.
There has been pending for few weeks an
application for mandamus on part Of the city
to compel Treasurer Miller to observe the old
law. He filed a demurrer, and the opinion yester-
day overruled it, holding that he must follow
the same methods of accounting to the city which
his predecessors have been required to follow.
The court then reviewed the various acts of
the Legislature before and to the time the act Of
Feb. 81, 1885, abolshine the Office Of city treas
urer, and passing his duties to the county treas
urer, went into effect. The thirty fourth section
Of the act of March IA, 1867, made it the duty of
the city treasurer to receive all moneys, ETC.,
belonging to the city, to keep accurate accounts
Of money received and paid out The thirty
third section imperatively required the city
treasurer on the last day Of each month to fur
nish to the city clerk statement of all receipts
and disbursements of the month, and the bal
ance Of the treasury belonging to each fund.
Section forty three provided for settlement
annually in April with the city clerk. The pro-
visions of the act of 1885 are carefully noted to
see whether the treasurer is released as city
treasurer from furnishing to the city clerk, on
the last day OF each month. statement OF re.
ceipts and disbursements during the month, and
the balance then Ia his hands, and from other
duties prescribed in section 80.
1t is evident that there is no provision in the
act of 1885 requiring the county treasurer to
furnish statements to the county auditor. and
there is no means Of informing the city what
funds he has in the hands Of the county treas
urer against which he can draw except that af-
forded by the semi annual statements Of the
county treasurer with the county auditor, unless
the duty to furnish the monthly statements re-
CURED by section 33 of the said act of March,
the several sections of the act Of 1885 has shown
that there is no other provision therein for the
performance Of the duty required by said section
80 of the act Of 1867, and the utility and neces-
sity of such requirement needs no argument
for its support
1T is, therefore, our opinion that by force of
that part of section of the act of 1885, which
requires the respondent to perform all the duties
which, by law or the ordinances Of the city OF
Indianapolis, were required to be done by the
treae
manner and with like effect as such
duties were required to be performed
by said city treasurer; said section 33 Of
the act of 1867 remains in full force and that 1t
Is the duty of the respondent to furnish the city
clerk of the relator on the last day OF each
month q statement of all receipts and disburse-
ments made by him during the month, and the
balance then in the treasury OF the moneys Of
the CITY, and also to deliver to the said clerk all
the orders redeemed and Cancelled by him du--
ing the same period. We. therefore, conclude
that the respondent County treasurerl is bound
by law to pay all orders issued by the city of
Indianapolis when presented to him, it there is
any money in his hands belonging to the city,
appropriated for that purpose, sufficient to pay
the same, without regard to his semi-annual set
Elements with the county auditor OF said county,
and whether any such settlements have or have
not been made, as provided for in section ! of
the act of 1875
IF this conclusion is not correct there is no
law requiring the respondent to pay out money,
Of the city on orders issued by her to him, nor
any other fixed rule for payments Of such money
for the said act Of 1885 is silent upon the sub
ject"
The opinion held further that as to the city
school fund the treasurer was not required to
account for it, except in the semi-annual settle
ment. The difference in decision on this point
is that there is specific instruction in the new
law as to how the treasurer should proceed in
relation to it, and that this provision repeats the
old law.
In conclusion, the judges said the petition Of
the city cites facts that entitle it to writ Of
mandamus against its treasurer. City Attorney
Taylor appeared for the city and Duncan, Smith
and Wilson for the defendant. 1t is probable
the question will be taken to the Supreme Court