Birmingham state herald., 1897-05-20

Sone QayS ago the governor addressed written inquiry to the encouragement asking for his official opinion on the law points involved in the matter of the bond of the tax collector of Moblle county. To these inquiries the attorney general, Hon. William c. Pitts, has filed the fol- lowing as his official answer and opin- ion:
 STATE OF ALABAMA.
 Office of Al orney- General,
 VIM. C. FGTTS, Attorney General.
 Montgomery. May 6, 1S97 Hon. Joseph F. Johnston, Governor of
 Alabama, Capitol
 Dear Sir:| have your favor of April 30, submitting for my investigation cer- tain papers and mat CTS touching the office of .aX coli.l-,tor of Mobile county.
 In order to answer intelligently the eight questions which you propouLd seri- atim, it is necessary to rehearse in a sue cinc't way the cardinal fac.s as l gathsr them from the papers which you trans init.
 While such does not clearly appear from the record before me, Itake it that one D. B. Lett. was, at .he August elec- tion in 1896, eluted to the office of tax collector for Mobile county, and that he qualified and entered upon the duties of his office in pursuance of such elecl.ion.
 1t appears lhat at the November term of 1896 of th'9 city court of Mobile the grand jury of that county by written repo.l! to the presiding judge made known the fad that the official bond of the tax collector was insufficient, the said report of the grand jury employing the follow ing language "We recomms nd that ehe county tax collector be required to give additional security in the sum of fifty thousand dollars" This report of the gnand jury appears to have been read and filed on the 2d.h day of November, 1896. c =lf-e9f s
 On the 2d day of December 1896, the clerk of the court to which the grand jury'S report had been addressed trans- m1b.ed to the probate judge of the coun y a certified copy of that portion of the report relating to the insufficieney of he tax collectors bond. =-
 On the said 2d day of December, 1896, the probate judga issued his citation to the tax collector, requiring the said col lector to appear in the probate court on the 17th day of December, 1896, and show cause why you should not increase your bond as required by said r5com- mendation." The return of the sheriff indicates that he served this citation upon the. tax collector upon the same day, December g. 4 V4y-
 The record of the probate court shows Chat on the 17th day of December, the tax collector appeared in thaS court in obedience to the mandate of said cfta : tion-and, to quote the. exact words of the rscord-"prays the court to grann him until the Tth day of January, 1897. in which to file such bond. It is ordered by the court that said prayer be granted, and January ', 1897, is set as .he day for said tax collector to file his addi ional bond as recommended"
 When the Eth of January, 1S97 arrived the court, instead of disposing of the matter, made and entered upon the min utes the following order:
 "PrOEHta CO1Irt Jan,,or,y 1ooz IT. L. orederd by the court that D. B. Lott have further time ur!tl January 16, 1897. in which to file additional bond"
 The minute entry for Jan 16 recited mat F. B. Lott as tax collector of Mo bile county had appeared on the 14th day of January, 1897, and filed his addi- tional bond for $50,00O, which had besn on that day taken and approved.
 The next turn in the chain of facts occurs on the 24th day of March 1897. when one c. Burke, who had become one Of the sureties upon the additional bond Of Jan. IA, 1897, appeared in the probate court of Mobile county and in a sworn application says as follows: Applicant states that he is in danger of being madc liable on said bond and has and can have no adequate remedy al ga nst his principal, said Elisha B.. Lott, in consequence of said principals inability to discharge such liability"
 On said 24th day of March, upon the cause made by Burke's affidavit, the pro- bate judge proceeded to issue to the said tax collector another citation to the fol- lowing effect: You are hereby ordered to file a new additional bond as tax col lector of Mobile county, Ala, on or be- fore March 31, 1897." The return of the sheriff shows that the citation was served upon MT Lott on the 18th day of March, 1897.
 The record before me fails to show that anything was done on the 31st day of March, as set and ordered in (said citation, but under date of April 10 find the following: This day comes EI B. Lott, tax collector of Mobile countyS and submits additional bonds, aggregating $50,000. In lieu of the additional bond heretofore given by him. viz: Jan. IA, 1s97 It is ordered that said bonds be filed ap- proved and recorded. It is farther or forwarded to- the auditor as required by law and the sureties on the additional bond of D. B. Lott of Jan. IA, 1897, are hereby discharged."
 It would be proper to observe that the papers referred to in this order as ad- ditional bonds are four in number, bear ing the following striking peculiarities:
 CD One of them purports to be for $25,- 900 and is executed by the principal and thirteen sureties. Of these sureties two their signatures, add the words or fig ures flor twenty-five hundred dollars."
 @ Another of these alleged bonds is, on it's face, for 900, signed by three sureties, but each surety upon it attempts to measure or limit the amount he stands for by some memorandum or addition to his sigpature,- $9,50O being the highest point of enthusiasm attained by any surety upon this paper.
 (3) There is yet another for $10,000 ac- cording to it's face, but here again the several sureties9 attempt to write limita- tions along with their signatures, one going as high as S, ,000. and the other two attempting to fix the smaller limit of $2,- 500 as to themselves.
 (4) The remaining and fourth bond purports to be for $5,000, and is signed by