Birmingham state herald., 1897-05-16

pfaint makes ten assignments of breaches
 of official bond, the ese1ice of them ing
 tha. Lott had failed to make final settle mems with the auditor on the list of May,
 1879, and 1880, as required by law, for
 the taxes of 1878 and 1879, respectively. b Lott pleaded that on the last Sas ur-
 day of each north from October, 187S to January 1881, he made report under
 oath to the probate judge for the amounts. collected during such months
 and paid over to the state treasurer every
 dollar Of such taxes (eXcept school and poll staxes) and on the 14th of February,
 1881, he made final settlements for the
 he made final settlement for 1879.
 He made the same monthly reports
 from October, 1879, to April 1881, as to the taxes of 1879, and on the 27th of May, 1881, he made flral sttlement for 1879. l., It was shown by the evidence that no interest was eyer paid and there was
 nothing to show why he failed 10 collect :, The lower court decided against the
 state,- and. the state appeal-d. The su-
 pEeme rconrt reversed and remanded 1he decision oof the circuit court.
 SUPREME COURT NO. ?.
 Rrickell, e. J. delivered the opinion.
 |. Iii veluma 79 of the supreme court re- ~portss page 69,~is reported the case of
 Mobile county vs Lot. the tax collector,
 and the sureties on his official bond for l.aecolipt.s discovery and enforcement of
 lien. The bill was filed October 5, 1885. r Tn eS- prayer 'sof Ttha bill was That said Lott may make full and true discovery Isand4 disclosure Aof and concerning all f .sxes-due your orator for years preceding 1880, which he has collected since August l z lSSDs. thaf an account be aken under the direation of tn. court between your ora tor and -she dependents to ascertain and | fix the amount due 1t from said Lott, on ]. acceh t, ,ofesuch back taxes, and the coun- try tox 1axrt tad oY1 1OlIo fo1 .of I'ahe years 1SSO-S1sS2 S4 and the date and amount of each default made by said | Isott as to such back and other taxes;
 and proceeds to ask for disclosure of lsppelseftya pfasureties
 It will be noticed hat the chief reason MT. Lott assigns why the small sum
 named sheuld-be received is that his sura- ties are bankrupt and that he himself is entirely insolvent.
 Lott demurred to the bill on several | grounds and the court overruled the de- | murrer and the defendant Lott appealed. R. H.Clark was attorney for the county | ard esuhmtttede brief summorized in | the report of the case and in which oc- l CUTS the following; AS to the account l furnished by the collector himself which 1 is made an exhibit to the bill, it is ex- pressly averred'to be full of inaccuracies, and It's incorrectness is apparent on it's face. This account extends through a period of ten wears, and involves trans actions amounting to more than half a million dollars"
 The supreme court sustained the lower court, decided against Lott. the opinion being by Somerville, J.
 SUIT NO. g.
 In 1884 the state again brought suit against Lott for money which he had collected and refused to pay over for | the year 1883. R. H. Clarke was again employed as the political persecutor on this occasion and his fee was to be 10 per cent. of all sums recovered. He was successful in recovering from MT. Lott 1 or his sureties the amount of $16,565. 10, l and ths- records in the auditors office | show that MT. Clarke was paid every