The evening herald. [volume] (Shenandoah, Pa.) 1891-1966, 1899-06-20
THE 1896 CASE DETERRENT.

| III Iesaru 10 tne rule TO open Judgment ON
the 1896 bond his Honor remarked he need
not say that all the authorities apply here.
In reference to the 1895 bond he ought to
have said tie claim Wa made that tb-
duplicate had not been delivered in time. but
that contention is also overruled. Two cues
tions arise in the matter of the 1896 bond
viz First, that the collector was elected
April lst, 1894, for a term of three years. ex
piring April 1st. 1897. The Act of Assembly
provides that the collector ''shall well and
truly collect and pay over, or account for the
whole Of the tax moneys embraced in the
duplicate which shall be delivered to him
ETC."
The point was made that he did not get the
duplicate until December, 1897, long after his
term ended. Under this state of affairs it is
questionable if sureties are responsible for a
duplicate delivered eight months after the
expiration of the collectors term of office
and year and some months after the time il
| should have been in his hands.
Secondly, the claim is made that the
balance was not fixed as the result of an
audit but is estimated" at sixteen thousand
and so many dollars. The balance in such
matter should not be arrived at by an esti-
mate but ought to be determined exactly
from the accounts.
The Judge said he felt the greatest re-
sponsibility rested on the proposition, that
the duplicate was not placed in the hands of
the collector within the legal limit. There
is no question of the fact that he paid over
every cent collected in 1895, which leaves the
bare naked question, whether the bail can be
held for taxes he never collected on a dupli-
cate he never received.
The Act of 1897 was quoted by one side
and, after careful consideration, it is a mat
ter Of grave doubt as to what effect shall be
given its provisions. 1t was signed May 1lth.
1897 and whether it was passed for the ex
press purpose of meeting this case, or at the
request of Others in a similar position, we
cannot say; but, the language seems to in
dicate it was passed to meet this case. How
ever, that is not a matter of great Importance.
This Act reviyes the liability of tax collectors
and gives them power to collect DELINQUENT
taxes from all persons. whether in the dis.
trict, or out of it, The Act provides that in
all cases in which two years, the Limitation
of the warrants in the duplicate, have ex
pired, and in all cases where the power and
authority of tax collectors has expired, or
shall expire during the year 1897, by virtue
of the expiration of their term of Office. and
the collector has, or shall become, liable for
the amount of tax on his duplicate without
having collected the same, the said duplicate
and warrant, and the powers and authority
of the collector are revived and ex-
tended one year from the passage of the
said Act and the collector is authorized
and empowered to proceed and collect the
taxes from all persons who have not paid
taxes assessed to them residing in the district
within which it may have been assessed, as
well as from all persons who removed there
from Provided, that provisions of the Act
shall not apply to warrants issued prior to
lssO,an that nothing contained in the Act
shall release any bondsman, or security.
Another question is, if an Act passed ON
May llth. 1897, can revive the liability Of
collector whose term Of office expired April
lst, 1897, or that Of his sureties
Judge Bechtel in conclusion said he did
not think the sureties should be called upon