The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1899-08-27

1
the County Tressurer-RuIing of
Judge Otis in the Jay Davis Case.
According to statements made yester-
! day County Treasurer AroSin will not
| escape lightly in the report of the bank
examiner to the board of county COM
missioners, in the matter of the alleged
Irregularities in the May sale of 1897
taxes. 1t appears that, in spite of the
statement of County Attorney Bigelow
that the county auditor must return to
the county treasury the money paid out
of the premium fund on property yet I'M
| redeemed, the county treasurer is the
party liable. The investigation by he
state authorities will, it is said, be more
stringent into his affairs, if anything,
than into the conduct of the auditor S
! office
When Deputy County Auditor Bourne
decided to refund the premiums on the
sums paid in for tax certificates without
reference to the redemptions he an
nounced his intentions to the cashier of
the treasurer'S office and presumably to
the county auditor himself. In spite of
the fact that the payment of the warrants
drawn under those circumstances on the
premium fund was in every sense Tile
gal, the county treasurer made 10 pro-
test, at least that is on record. Instead
the warrants drawn in the auditors Of
hce were paid without question.
In taking this view of the matter the
county treasurer failed. it appears, to
take into consideration the fast that he
Is practically the cashier of the county,
with the same responsibility as a bank
| cashier. This proposition has been sus-
! tanned repeatedly by the courts, most
notably in the case of Jay P Davis, a
! clerk in the office of the clerk of the
courts, who, in 1891, forged certain wit
ness and jury warrants to the aggre-
gate amounts of $24,569.5O. On these the
county auditor, gave his warrants signed
| by him in person, and they were paid by
| Andrew N. Nelson, at that time county
! treasurer, without question. The court
| held that the treasurer was liable Judge
| OTIS, in memorandum accompanying
| his decision giving judgment against the
treasurer in favor of the board of coun-
ty commissioners, said:
| 1t Is true he was not justified in hon
orlng such certificates so converted into
warrants by payment without satisfy
ing hlmsef that the persons presenting
the same were the payeeS therein named
or legally claiming under such persons.
since, however upon their face they
were apparently genuine, he was the
more easily deceived into emitting the
| precautions required by law"
The case was appealed to the supreme
court, which sustained the district court
In their brief submitted to the supreme
court and which was sustained, ''Bill'
Erwin and Cy Wellington, who were
counsel in the case, said:
We shall assume at the outset that
the duties of the county treasurer. as
defined by law, are to receive the money
belonging to the county and to paw il
out in the manner provided by law. and
not otherwise AS the custodian of such
fund he is charged with a positive, i'm
| peratlVe duty, and this duty is not left
to conjecture or sur1nise, and it's nature
IS not to be inferred by reasoning based
on the position he occupies, but is ex-
| pressly defined by statute