The record-union., 1896-06-08
IT OFFICIALS ARE ROBBED
Ihey Are Not Responsible for the Stolen
Money.
supreme Court Decision in Case
From the County of
Sonoma.

On Saturday the Supreme Court filed
n decision to the effect that proof OF a
robbery is ample defense to am action
against the officer and his bondsmen
60 recover the amount of money stolen.
This decision was rendered in the suit
Of the city of Healdsburg against
George " Mulligan ct al.
While Mulligan was Treasurer of
Healdsburg $3,541 40 disappeared from
zhe city treasury. Mulligan was found
early one morning bound and gagged
just outside of the city. He explained
that 4 p. m the previous day he had
been seized by robbers, who had forced
him to open the treasury vault. They
had taken from the vault all the money
in sight and then, according to Multi
gan's story, had carried him outside of
the city limits and left him in the posi-
Eion in which he was found
Mulligan gave a description of the al
aeged robbers, but no trace of them was
ever found. The unfortunate Treas
urer. as result of his experience, suf-
4ered a severe nervous shock. He never
recovered from the shock, and shortly
afterward died.
The suit Of the city of Healdsburg was
TO recover from Mulligan and his bonds
nen the amount of money stolen. The
bondsmen were James A. Mead, c. Null
lei, Frank Koenig, Israel Cook and Rob-
ert High. Judgment was given in the
lower court for the city, and the defend
ants appealed, with the result above
stated
In their answer the defendants set up
two defenses. The first put in issue the
alleged breach of trust, conversion and
refusal to pay out the money, and the
second defense pleaded the facts Of the
robbery. On motion of the plaintiff the
second defense was stricken out on the
theory that robbery was no defense.
The trial was without a jury and judg-
nent for the city was based ON a finding
that Mulligan had converted the money
to his own use
The Supreme Court opinion quotes
decisions in other States where it has
been held in cases like the one at bar
that robbery is a good defense. The
reason Of the rule appears in the Maine
case Of Cumberland VS. PenneIl, from
which the Court quotes as follows:
Were the law otherwise in this State,
and known to be such, faithfulness
and honesty, even if they continued
to be considered commendable per-
sonal qualities, would be held, if not
mere distractions, matters of second
airy Importance, at least, in candi-
dates. Such qualifica tions, accompan-
led by the highest capability. would,
IN the absence of sufficient property in
the principal to secure his sureties, fail
10 obtain them. For many a response
bic person would gladly sign a bond
as surety, guaranteeing the faithful
ness, honesty and capacity Of his neigh
bor, which were so potent in effecting
his election to the responsible public
station of County Treasurer, who
would hesitate to insure the public
against possible loss happening in spite
OF such qualities; for TO insure against
such loss is not only vouching for
The integrity of the officer, but prac-
ticaly for the rest Of mankind-that
they will not rob him"
The opinion indorsing this principle
arxiously awaited on account Of its
and was accepted as the opinion of the
Court by Justices Harrison, Garoutte.
Van Fleet, Mcfarland and Hensbaw.
Chief Justice Beatty dissented. but
wrote no opinion.
The Supreme Court decision has been
aniously awaited on account of its
bearing on another case of the same
kind in Sonoma County. Shortly after
the Mulligan affair raid was made on
the County Treasury Some $4,000 was
stolen and the then Treasurer, P. N.
Stofen, and his bondsmen have since
been sued for the money.