The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1889-01-24
Paine's Celery Compound
Suit on Official Bond-Evidence-Statu Of
Limitations.
The State of South Carolina, VS.. Lake
ct 81.

This appeal was first heard at the
November term Of the Supreme Court,
1887, when reargument was ordered
upon the following questions, to wit:
"Whether the Statute OF Limitations
applies as matter of defence by the
defendants, principal and sureties, and
especially whether it can be set up in
action on bond, like that in this case.
"2d. And if 50, whether the condl-
tions warranting It's interposition are
present, either in behalf Of the princi-
pal or sureties, or BOTH"
This reargulnent was heard at the
April term, 1883.
The facts are these: The defendant,
Lake, was elected clerk of the Court OF
Common Pleas for Newberry County
in 1868. The defendants, Wickers,
koon, &C., were his sureties. He went
into office in 1868, and out of office in
1872, being succeeded by one smith.
This action was brought IN 1885, nearly
thirteen years after Lake went Out OF
office. The complaint alleges various
breaches of the bond. First, that Lake,
as clerk, received large SUMS OF money
belonging to different parties in the
cases of Hill vs Thompson and Thomp-
son vs.. Thompson, which money, then
in his hands officially, he did not, as
required by law, from time to time re-
port to the Court; second, that said
money was not deposited in bank as
required by law; third, that be failed
to pay it to his successor in office &C
cording to law; fourth, that said Lake
failed and still refuses to pay over the
money in question to the parties re-
spectively entitled thereto.
Lake denied the material allegations
of the breaches, and made defence:
lst. That the attorneys for the par
ties in interest prevented him by their
advice from paying over the money to
his successor, Smith.
I'd. That the causes of action did not
accrue within six years before COM
mencenent of the action.
3D.. Thas che causes of action did not
accrue within ten years before suit
brought.
4th. That there is another action
pending on the same subject matter
The sureties made the same defence
Also, in addition thereto, that the
plaintiff in 1868 accepted a bond from
Lake as clerk, with one Crooks as
surety, and thereby caused the release
of the sureties on the first bond.
The case was tried by the Circuit
Judge and jury. The jury found tor
the sureties; but against Lake, the
principal obligor, they found for the
plaintiff the penalty of the bond. Both
sides appealed, Lake because he was
held liable, and the plaintiff, because
the sureties were not also included in
the verdict against the principal.
The Supreme Court atfirms the Judge,
ment below as to the sureties, and re-
verses the same as to the principal,
Lake.
Opinion by Simpson, c. J.
All the Justices concur that 1t was
not error to receive the records IN the
case of Hill vs. Watson, Thompson vs.
Thompson and Smith vs. Lake in evi
dence. The record of the Court III
| which Lake was party is admissible
as tending to show that the funds 1T
his hands as clerk were never turned
over to his successor. See Greenl. Oh
Ev, S. 527 and 538.
Justice McIver also concurs in the
result reached, but filed a separate
opinion. -,
Justice MCGOWAN dissents as to tht
conclusion reached, and filed dissent
ing opinion. He thinks the judgmen
should be affirmed.
Messrs. Jones & Jones, Suber & Cald
we'll for plaintiff. Messrs. Y. j. Pope
| Meorman & Simkins for defendants.