The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-03-07

fee for record, and the same was re-
corded in book 511 of deeds, on page 459.
Subsequently, by the order of the regis
ter of deeds, this record was transferred
to book 81 of miscellaneous records on
page 127, and the original record in deed
record hl1 was obliterated. The paper
writing thus recorded as, and for the
original deed filed for record, April IA,
1889. was not the original deed so filed
for record, but was made up to simulate
It, of which fact the register Of deeds had
full knowledge. Subsequent to its record
in book of deeds Oil, the paper writing
referred to is alleged to have been lost.
Thereafter Dec. l. 1899, Frank c. Metcalf,
as register of deeds of said county, caus-
ed to be made a copy and transcript of
the record contained in said book 81 of
miscellaneous records, on page 127 and
following words: 81, Frank c. Metcalf,
register of deeds, within and for said
county of Hennepin and state of Mime
scta, do hereby certify that l have care
fully compared the above and foregoing
copy of warranty deed with the record
thereof, as recorded in my Office in book
u OF miscellaneous; page l27, and that the
same is true and correct transcript and
copy of the same and of the whole there
of, and do further certify, that 1 am the
officer in whose custody said record is
required by law to be kept" and deliver
ed the same to the complainant and rep
resented the same to the complainant and
his attorney as certified copy of the
record of his original deed, when he in
in fact knew that the original deed had
never been recorded in his office. 1t does
not appear from the evidence that Frank
e. Metcalf, the register of deeds intend
ed to defraud any person by any of the
acts herein recited. His sole purpose off
any is established by the evidence) APP
pears TO have been to shield the office
against the criticism incident to the loss
of conveyance properly filed, before the
same had been recorded.
These acts on the part of Mr.. Metcalf
undoubtedly constitute malfeasance in Of
flee, and while it seems harsh to remove
an official on account of acts which were
not dictated by corrupt motives, as the
term is generally understood, neVerthe-
less; every dictate of prudence and sound
public policy and the integrity Of the
records constituting the muniments of
title of the property in the community
perVision of the conduct of public Of
flcials should not shut their eyes to prac-
tees which, If tolerated would result in
general insecurity in titles, and endless
litigation.
In a case not unlike this in principle
Commonwealth VS.. Chambers, list Mar
son, In his separate opinion, uses this
language: mo clerk should give a GER
tificate purporting to be a copy from
his record without inspecting his record
and actually copying from it. He cannot
be excused for authenticating as a copy
what does not exist, nor what he has not
seen, and is totally ignorant of. He is
a ministerial officer. His trust is a high
ly important one. He is the depository
of the public confidence His chief duties
are to keep safely and copy truly. He
must not usurp judicial power, and
should be held responsible for every
breach of duty of which no careful and
honest clerk can ever be guilty. He can
not be permitted to do that which il gen.
orally tolerated, must tend to the sub
version of all confidence in his acts, and
of all the securities of his Office
Judge Marshall. IN his opinion in the
Il cannot permit a clerk to excuse him
self in these cases, by urging that the
alteration was designed to make the rec
ord as 1t ought to have been in the first
instance, and that he acted with the best
intentions. or that he made out and GER
titled as the record that which, although
not true, he had every reason to believe
was true. can readily suppose that a
clerk in copying. a record may make a
mistake by leaving out a word or SEN
tence, or that he might insert one word
for another or that he might inadvertent-
ly introduce a word having no relation
in meaning to the subject matter of the
record but to suppose that a clerk
could make out and certify as the record
what does not exist, and that he could
DO so without committing palpable
preach of good behavior, would be to in
dulge in conjectures and to frame eX-
cuses for official delinquency, against all
propriety and reason"
Judge. Underwood, in the same case,
uses this language, page 120: "In adju-
dfcating upon the conduct of clerks. this
court cannot enter into consideration
of the motives which influence their con-
duct. The simple inquiry under the con-
stitution is, has a breach of good be-
havior in Office been established by the
proof? If it has been, whether it pro-
ceeded from ignorance, good intentions
or bad, the consequences are the same
| lin their~nature, although they may not
be in degree) to the community. A clerk
| may do an act from the best motives and
| yet he might place himself in such an
attitude by, It as imperiously to require
! his removal