Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-11-17
The j. W. Riackman Case.

The case of NJ. 3. Lloyd VS.. City of Fort
Worth having been reversed and remanded
by Judge Henry of the court of appeals, the
decision having been published in Sundays
GAZETTE, calls to mind the case of j. W.
Blackman, at one time taX-collector aud as
SCISSOR of the city Of Fort Worth, with
which particulars the old citizens of Fort
Worth are familiar. Blackman was elected
tc the Office of city tax-collector and asses
sOr in April, 1855, and up TO that time there
had not been as much as shadow cast
upon his good character, but upon his ad-
vent into Office ne became what is co monty
called sshigh roller" and remained III Of
flee until January, 1856. In June of 1883,
however. Blackman'S first bondsmen, MOTTO
ing the direction in which the straws were
drifting, became dissatisfied and made APP
plication to the council to be released.
This application was granted and the coun-
ell made an order that J. W. Blackman be
forced to make another bond, which he did.
In the meantime Blackman threw
the Investigators OFF the track.
claiming his accounts were all
right, and declaring he would
make it unpleasant for his accusers, etc,
and matters drifted on until January, 1856,
at which time his business affairs got in
such bad shape the countil did enter upon
an investigation, during which Blackman
made an assignment of his saloon business
and some city property, and left the
country though he took but little with him,
having bowed himself in fine style during
his official career.
The result of the councils investigation
brought Blackman defaulter to the city in
the sum of SS029.
Suit was filed to recover the amount from
the first set of bondsmeu. In 4 trial in the
district court here before Judge Beckham,
the city recovered Judgment for the whole
| amount against the first set of sureues, who
appealed the case, the result of which ap-
| peal is as follows:
M s. Lloyd Us. City of Fort Worth; from
| Tarrant. Suit by appellee to recover of
| appellants as bondsmen, for defalcation of
| one Blackman as city assessor and collector
| of Fort Worth. Blackman entered on his
duties April %, 1885, and the city council
having Cancelled his bond on June 3, 1885,
| on tn e same day he executed new bond
with different sureties. Appellants were
| sureties on the first bond. /. The excep-
| tions to appellants special pleas We're prop
| erIy stricken out The city council was
without authority to release the Ohligors on
| an official bond, and we further think that
| the expression cancelled as used by the
| council must be held to apply to future and
not past responsibility. The sureties must
be charged with knowledge of the want of
| power of the city council to release them on
the bond. ,. The court erred in refusing the
| following charge: THE jury are instructed
| that IN no event can they find q verdict
against defendants for an amount larger
than the smallest amount that the evidence
shows Blackman 10 have been indebted
to plaintiff at any time subsequent
to June 3, 1885, and prior to his resignation,
| with interest thereon from January /,
1856" The evidence shows that at one
time he was in default for a smaller
amount twithin the time named) than the
sum for which judgment has been obtained
against appellants. Reversed and re-
manded. Henry, j."
The result of this opinion may indicate
clearly how much each set of bondsmen
will be required to pay, the mandate not
| having yet been received by the city attor-
neys at the time, Messrs. Caps & Canty.
| The suit against the second set of bonds
| men is yet pending.