Mineral Point tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1869-1938, 1893-01-14

money. The nature or SAID treasurer 10
p account for or pay over such interest
money to the persons entitled thereto or
To his successor in office, is alleged as
breach of the condition of the bond.
A further breach thereof Is assigned In
respect 10 the alleged failure of Treas
as one of the commissioners of the pub
lie Lands in the investment OF the trust
funds in the treasury
The defendant, Edward c. McITet-
ridge, answered separately, rs did the
defendant James A. MeFetridge, one OF
the suretieS. The other suretes an
swered Jointly 1t is substantially adj
mitted in each answer that the treasurer
did deposit the public funds in banks.
and in his answer it is admitted that he
received some pecuniary gains. com.
pensation or percentage from some of
said banks, in consideration OF the incl
dental benefits aeeruing TO them from
such deposits 1t is alleged on each an
swer that the making OF such deposits
was unauthorized 10y law.
A trial of the action in the circuit
court resulted in findings Of fact 10 the
effect that, during his said official term,
the defendant, Edward G. McFetridge,
the principal in the bond in suit. loaned
to, and placed and kept on deposit with
divers banks and banking associa lions
and firms, from time 10 time, a large
portion Of the funds and public money
of the state which came to his hands rs
understanding that such banks, associa.
tons and firms should pay as compen-
sation for such loans or deposits n per-
centage of interest upon the average
amount of such loans or deposits, at
certain rates for certain fixed periods,
at certain definite times that said Ed
ward G, McFeuidge, during his said
term, received OF such banks, associa-
tons and firms, $44,217S3, as interest
upon the funds and public money
in his hands belonging to the state,
thus deposited, which sum he failed 10
account for as public money Of the
state, or to pay the same over TO his
successor in Office.
As conclusions Of law the court
found that the money thus received by
the treasurer as interest on the public
funds thus loaned or deposited, became
accessory to and a part Of those funds;
That such funds, thus increased by the
interest paid thereon belonged TO the
state and not to the treasurer; and that
Treasurer McFeuidge, having failed TO
charge the same 10 himself in his ac-
count with the state or to pay the same
over to his successor in office or other
person lawfully entitled thereto, is and
the sureties ia his official bond arr liza
bic in this action for the amount thus
paid the treasurer as interest and unac-
counted for, together with interest
thereon from the first Monday in Jan
uaIy, 1887, at which date he suIren-
dcred his Office to his successor. There
is no controversy concerning the amount
thus received by the treasurer from the
banking institutions in which he made
the deposits.
The circuit court refused to find, MS
requested by the defendants, that none
of the sureties with single exception
knew that the treasurer deposited the
Hbblii 1ulltiH Will GNitll bilAhN anu b,tllk~
ing institutions, or that he received in
terest thereon, and never consented that
he might do SO; that such acts were I'M
lawful and such depositing Of the pub
lie funds by the treasurer for his own
gain and profit is prima facie evidence
Of ENLIGHTENMENT of such funds by him;
and that the sreties are not liable on
is .1,
tanned by him by such unlawful use of
the public funds in his hands as treas
urer.
Judgment was thercupon entered for
the state, against all the defendants,
for $44, 217.S3, and interest thereon from
the first Monday in January, 1SS7-be-
ing $15,9O6.I Eamouning in all to
S6O,12397, ana for costs. The circuit
Judge filed a written opinion in the case
which win be found in a note hereto.
All the defendants join in an appeal
from the Judgment.
(The opinion of Circuit Judge A. w.
Newman in the Harshaw case is here
quoted in fun
Chief Justice lyon then said: This
y
and others, which involves substantial
" the same legal question, We're
argued together in this court
1t is proper and just to say
at the outset that the arguments con
tain abundant evidence Of the great
labor and research bestowed upon the
cases by the able counsel of the respect
i've parties to the controversy. We ac-
knowledge our obligations to counsel
for the great aid we have derived from
their arguments. We shall not discuss
all the propositions argued, and shall
refer to comparatively few Of the num-
erous cases and authorities cited in their
support, although we Lave carefully
examined large numbers Of them. These
citations viii be preserved in the report
Of the case. We think the determine
ton of these cases must me controlled by
the construction which is given to GER
Lain statutes concerning the rights
duties and liabilities Of the state treas