The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-01-15
OFFER TO COMPROMISE
Johnson's Bondsmen Before the
Commissioners.
THEY WILL PAY UP $500
The Amount of Johnson's Embezzleme emit
During His First Term Is SO 800.
A Question as to the Worth
of the Bond.

proposition was made to the county
commissioners yesterday by James H.
Lynch in behalf of himself and Frank
Lynch, bondsmen for Charles @. john
son, the defaulting ex-county clerk, to
compromise for their liability by pay
ing the county $500. Mr.. Lynch and his
brother We're on Johnson's bond dur
ing his first term in office, during 1893
and 1884 Mr.. Lynch provided in his Of
fer that it should be accepted or de-
clined before the goth of this month.
The commissioners referred the propo-
sition to County Attorney Connolly for
his opinion on it. The amount of John
sons embezzlement during his first
term is about $4,000, and his bondsmen
are sued for that amount.
The actual embezzlement during his
second term, in 1895 and 1896, was only
50, but he retained certain fees amount
ing to $3,17605, which the court has
decided he was not entitled to, and his
bondsmen are sued for that sum. The
sureties on that bond were James A.
Murray, A. F. Bray, J. F. Beck and
A. W. Barnard. There is a serious
question whether that bond is worth
anything or not. Attorney Thresher
who represents Mr.. Murray and the
other bondsmen,. says it is not. That
question was argued before Judge
Lindsay yesterday evening on the hear
ing OF demurrer to the complaint, and
If 1t is sustained by the court it will
end the case ana the bondsmen cannot
be held. The suit against Murray and
his co-defendants is brought in the
name of the state, and Mr. Thresher
argued that the state was not a proper
party to the suit, as Johnsons bond
was made out to the county. He also
says that johnson held the bond in his
own custody, whereas the law required
the county treasurer to file the bond.
approve it and hold it. The bond had
never been delivered to the county
treasurer and he had never approved
1t nor had it in his custody.
The bond, which was dated Nov H.
1873, IL months after Johnson had en-
tered upon his second term of office
pretended to be given in lieu of a bond
on which James H. Lynch and Frank
Lynch were sureties. whereas their
bond expired with the expiration of
Johnson's first term in office and the
new bond is therefore null and void, as
its terms stated in it are false. Johnson
never attempted to qualify for his sec
ono term until after. he had been in
office II months and did not take the
oath of office until the 18th of Novem-
Der. Mr.. Thresher said the deficiency
was alleged to have occurred between
January, 1885, and Jan. q 1897, but it
could not be ascertained from any rec
ords whether the defalcation had oc-
Cured before the 18th of November,
during the time Johnson was allowed
to hold office without bonds, or after
that date.
County Attorney Connolly, in reply,
admitted that the complaint was rather
ambiguous and uncertain because the
bond itself was so. AS to the fact that
the action was brought in the name of
the state, he said that the codes of 1895
We're applicable to the case instead of
the statutes of 1887 and the action was
brought under the codes, which provide
that the suit shall be brought in the
name of the state. Mr.. Thresher. how
ever maintained that the 1887 statutes
governed. as they provide for only
$4,000, the amount of Johnson's bond |
whereas the codes provide for a bond
of $4,000. Mr. Thresher made strong
representation to the court as to the
Worthlessness of the bond. The court
took the case under advisement 1t was
suggested yesterday that in case the |
court should decide that the bond was |
no good the county might have a good |
cause of action against the old county |
commissioners who permitted johnson |
to hold office nearly a year without |
qualifying, and then to give a bond |
which was false and misleading upon |