Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1891-04-16
DID TIE cOLLEcToR PAY2
A Puzzling and Intricate Account for the
Levy Court 10 Settle,

Levy Court TO scttie.
The allegation made in a contemporary
that it had been ascertained at saturdays
levy court VS.. James T. Richardson inves-
tigation that Collector Richardson had
paid the sum Of $1,000 to County Treasurer
Hannah, and that the latter through care
lessnesS had failed to record the payment,
is stated by those interested to be incorrect.
Nothing final or definite was ascertained
that the tax collector had paid the money.
Collector Richardson holds alleged
vouchers for the amount. 1t seems, how
ever, that these vouchers may be pairs, that
is, two of them stand for one amount.
This is explained as follows: The collector
made payment of 81 600 by bank check
to the county treasurer The latter on re-
turning home sent Mr., Richardson regu-
lar county treasurer's receipt for 81 900.
1t is understood, however, that the
treasurer's endorsement on the bank
check of 81 1000 is claimed as a receipt in
itself for the sum of 81, 900. Such endorse
ments, when the money has been cashed
or credited, as it is not disputed was done
IN this case, stand in law as legal receipts.
The official county treasury receipt was
sent by Mr.. Hannah next day to Mr.. Rich
ardson The latter. also, in itself is an in
cOntcstablc cash receipt for 81 600. The
two receipts are dated on different days.
II is understood that the representatives Of
the deceased county treasurer clearly and
emphatiCally assert that the cheek en-
dorsement and the official receipt are for
the same payment, whereas the contention,
which it is understood will be made by the
collector, is thai there we're two separate
payments of 81 900 each.
1t is understood that iii regard to the
whole contested sum Of $1,000 the argu-
ment OF dual receipts depends. If this be
So, the legal requirement that the county
treasurer give official receipts for payments
including bank checks payable to order,
places such an official in d peculiarly
hazardous position. For he must neces-
sarly give two receipts for all payments
made II checks payable 10 his order; first
to the bank in the necessary endorsement
secondly in the Office receipt which the
law requires him to issue,
ON Mr.. Richardson's part il is claimed
that he made 81 900 currency payment
i'll addition and outside of the bank check
which would account for the two pay
mcntS. Mr.. Humans death adds some
difficulty to the features of the case, but il
Is believed that the identity OF dates, one
day following the other, of the two paw
ments sufficiently clearly show that they
were for one and the same tax collection
The deceased county treasurer was
bound by law to give the official receipt,
This, III law, makes two receipts for the
same sum, evidencing the righteousness
OF the requirements Of the enactment gov
erning the county treasurer's office. In
stead of giving an official receipt, il should
be only credit ON the county books in the
case of bank check payable to order, as
the treasurer's endorsement ON the latter is
legal discharge in full. An additional
receipt When currency IS paid IS another
matter, and would thus afford but one
RECENT.