The evening herald. [volume] (Shenandoah, Pa.) 1891-1966, 1899-01-04
BOND CASE
DECISION.
Conclusions Of Judge Bechtel on Mrs.
Mellet'S Claim.
EVIDENCE CAREFULLY SIFTED
The Testimony of All witnesses Reviewed
And the Contradictory Points Dis
cussed at Length-Uourt Held
Mrs. Mellet's Evidence was
Not Corroborated.

3
ground that the signing Of her name thereto
were forgeries that it has been deemed ad-
visahle to publish the opinion of Judge
Bechtel, in dismissing the rules, in full, Civ
ing the public the opportunity of learning
the manner in which the court compared and
decided upon the contradictory evidence in
the matter. The opinion is as follows
NJ. j Scanlan was the tax collector for the
years lS934-5 and o, and for the years 1895
and he has failed to settle with the Borough
of Shenandoah, the above named plaintiff
Under our stricter accountability act of 1889
judgment bonds are required Of tax collectors
in this county. The above judgments were
entered upon the bonds of 1895 and 9, they
ha wing been certified into the Common Pleas
in the usual way. Each of said bonds is for
the sum of one hundred thousand dollars
Mary Mellet, one of the sureties appearing
upon said bonds, made application to court
and obtained the above rules, and now seeks
to be relieved from liability, upon the ground,
as shG asserts, that she neither signed,
nor authorized any one 10 sign,
either of said bonds Testimony has
been taken upon Soth sides, and this is now
before us for consideration. The cares are
important to all parties concerned and especi-
ally to the municipalities whose funds, to the
extent of many thousands Of dollars, are in
vOlved. We have, therefore, given to those
carefully considered every word of testimony,
as well as all papers connected with the
records. Mrs. Mary Mellet states in her testi-
mony that she did not sign either the bond of
'95 or '96 and did not authorize anyone to do
so for her, and as to these matters She speaks
positively. In her cross-examination she adj
mits she knew Scanlan was collector for 1898
40 and o, aud that she did sign one bond for
him in 1898. When her attention was drawn
to the fact that Scanlan's bond for that year
was given by Trust Company, she seemed
uncertain, but finally concluded she signed
an indemnity bond to the Trust Company
without acknowledging it She positively
testihes she did not sign Scanlan's bond of
1894. We will now refer to the testimony of
Scanlan, it being more directly in answer to
Mrs Mellet's. This witness is just as posi-
tive on the subject of Mrs. Mellet signing the
bonds as she is to the contrary. lie says
she made her mark to the signature. was
present, wrote her name she touched the
pen. speakln of the bond of 1895. She did
this either at my store or Mrs Durkin's
house." He also says he went with Squire
Toomey TO take the acknowledgements, but
did not remember whcsAer they took them
all or not. II denies that Mrs. Mellet had
any conyersat tion with him since she signed
the bonds. As to the bond of 1895 he says,
Mary Mellet signed this. / wrote her name
she placed her mark there in my presence
she signed in her own house, in her barrOOm,
Thomas I. Reilly is witness" As to the ac-
acknowledgement he says Squire Cardin went
with me to take acknowledgement" and to
the best of his recollection the acknoWl-
edgments were taken in his presence In his
cross-examinatiOn he is very positive and says
he swears positively to her mark and also
says he thinks he was with Cardin until all
the Acknowledgements were taken, He also
says Mrs. Mellet is his wife's aunt and
was on four bonds for him, that is she
was on the a3 indemnity bond and
on the '94 tax bond and also on bonds of '95
and '96 The bonds oi '94 is In evidence and
purports to be signed by her and is witnessed
by W. j. Calvin and acknowledged before
| Squire Toomey in April, 1894 The evidence
thus far presents the case of oath against
oath about as squarely as can be with the
papers, that is the bonds of 1894 '95 and '96
tending to corrObOrate Scaulan. We now
look at the evidence of other witnesses
| Squire Toomey says of the 81 bond the
signature to the acknowledgment is mine as
Justice of the Peace. l do not remember it
was taken before me. l remember only as
the paper shows. 1t is correct as far as |
know and as | certify there. | do not remem-
beT they came before me. They must have
done it, or ] would not have made
this" In his cross-examination he SAYS
in substance / haye no knowledge of the
fact other than the acknowledgment shows
l went to the house of Mrs Reilly TO take her
acknowledgment and l believe Mrs Mellet
was there. He cannot say positively that
was the place. He says Scanlan was with
him at Mrs. Reillys and also says 'as far as
know this is true and correct acknowledg-
ment of Mrs. Mellet's signature" In sub
| stance this is the officers testimony and we
can find no corroboration of Mrs. Mellet in
this but regard it as tending to corroborate
the position of the plaintiff that she
acknowledged the instrument. The fact that
the officer does not remember independently
of the acknowledgment, where she appeared
| before him, cannot OVerturn his official act as
conveyed in the certificate. An officer may
take many acknowledgements without being
able, two or three years thereafter to give a
personal recollection of the particulars at
\ tending the same, Matthew GiblOn, whose
name appears opposite Mrs. Mellet as witness,
| in substance says he has no recollection of
seeing her sign the bond and does not know
whether she made her mark in his presence,
and says he may have signed il "uncOn.
sciOusly and she not be there" His evidence
neither proves that she signed 1t, or that she
did not. His name upon the bond under his
evidence is of little consequence. Squire
Cardin says of the bond Of '96 the acknOwl-
edgment was taken by him, that "she must
have appeared before me, but /
have no personal recollection of it.
She must have appeared, or that
would not appear here He says he went
with Scanlan to take the Acknowledgements
/ ana went 10 mouse on Bower street ana TOOK
hers, but don't know who the party WAS that
he was not personally acquainted with Mrs
Mellet in Sept. '96. He says the certificate
on the bond aud his going 10 the house
mentioned and seeing the one party, a
woman, is all he remembers. There is moth.
ing in this evidence to invalidate his official
act, or to show that it is not true but rather
to show that it is true and that she, to use his
language, must have appeared or il would
not be there. Bridget Durkin SAYS that she
never saw Mrs. Mellet in her house with Scan
Ian and that Scanlan was there but once in 9i
and Mrs. Mellet was not there at that time
This evidence is to some extent cOntradic
tiOn of Seaman who mentions her house a
one of the places one of the bonds was signe,
or may have been signed. The aeknOwledg
ments on these bonds appear there by reasol
Of our rule, requiring them to all signature
made by mark, for the purpose of preventing
just such difficulties as those now presente,
in these cases. They are not to be light
brushed aside but merit at least the pre-
sumption Of correctness accorded the acts Q
like officials in other cases We have numeI
Gus authorities under the acts of 1877 an
1891 serving TO show the circumstances unde
which the court may open judgments
We cannot review these in thi
opinion, hut cite as bearing upo
the subject Earley's appeal, 90 Pa, 32l