The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-07-10
County Will Carry Case to
Court of Appeals.
Amount Awarded Represents GEN
eral Fund at Time of Bank
Failure, Plus Interest.
Judge Jones's Re-
view of Case.

By direction of Judge Thomas G. Jones
the jury trying the case of the County
of Montgomery against the Fidelity and
Deposit Company of Maryland and J. j.
Cochran County Treasurer yesterday re-
turned verdict for the county for $685.
69.92. This represents the amount in the
general fund of the county at the time OF
the failure of Josiah Morris d Co, with
the interest added.
The jury sat nearly three days listening,
to legal arguments, and Judge Jones pre-
faced his affirmative charge to the jury
with a lucid and at times luminous re-
view of the case. He said he did TINS
through consideration for the jury and
in order that the jurors might understand
why he did not allow the county to ad-
duce testimony relating to the failure of
the banking house and the sale of the
bond issue for purpose of building roads
and bridges.
BY the verdict returned by the jury
upon direction of Judge Jones, the county
loses its claim for Sill ,1C9.5S. the amount
of the proceeds from the bond SALE but
the case will be appealed to the United
States Court of Appeals.
Immediately after the verdict was re-
turned by the jury Hon. Thomas IL.
Watts, representing the surety company,
tepdered the lawyers representing the
county in open court the amount of the
verdict The lawyers for the county said
they would accept the tender as a credit
but not in full settlement of the county's
claim. The bond company declined to pay
the amount as a credit.
When the court met at 10 o'clock yes
terday morning it was expected that
there would be some argument over the
question of interest on the general fund
| which amounted to over $1,000. The law
yers for the bond company announced
| that they did not care to argue the mat
ter of interest and Judge Joies then
| charged the jury to bring in a verdict for
| $50, 92, the amount of the general fund
with interest
Prefacing his charge to the jury Judge
Jones' reviewed the history of the case
| and the evidence.
Gentlemen of the jury" said Judge
Jones, this is an important case, in
wolves large amount, and has attracted
widespread interest. However much
such state of. things may exact care
| and elaboration on the part of the court.
| they can exercise no legitimate influence
| in determining the principles of law
which must control the case They do
not add at all to your cares, since the
responsibility for the right application
| of the law rests solely upon the judge.
|
| jurors, constitute an important branch
of the court, and have sat here some time
hearing evidence. / think it considerable,
though not at all necessary, to advise
/ you of the reasons, for the instruction
shall presently give you.
| There Is no disputed question of fact
| in this case at the close of the evidence.
| During the trial, l allowed declarations
and reports of Cochran acknowledging
amounts of money in the county treasury
| to go in evidence because the jury might
infer from them the actual receipt of
money by Cochran as Treasurer, beyond
| the amount of actual money for which he
| acknowledges responsibility. All the
| witnesses on either side, who have any
| knowledge of the matter, have testified
| unequiVocally that Cochran received no
money on account of the bonds, and have
stated facts which show that in the eye
of the law he never received any money
| the proceeds of the bonds sold. Cochran
! himself testifies that when these reports
were made and admitted by him he stated
to the officials to whom they were made
| that they only represented paper trans
| actions"
| Under the rules governing the admin
istration of justice in the courts of the
| United States, where the evidence so
| strongly proves or disproves fact, that
though there be some slight proof the
| other way, the judge would be bound to
| set aside verdict the other way, because
not supported by the evidence-he is not
| bound to submit the question to the jury,
| but may treat the fact, as proved or dis
proved as the case may be, and direct
the jury accordingly. Hence in dispos-
ing of this case, the court must instruct
you that it has not been proved thatCoch-
ran received a cent of the proceeds" of
the bond sale. What he actually receiy-
| ed of the other fund the time of its con-
| version and the amount has all been
! agreed There is no dispute as to that
! All the questions in the case are matters
of pure law. That you may fully I'M
derstand that in giving you the perempto-
| ry instruction which ! will give the court
| has not in any wise invaded your
province as triers of the facts. l take the
| trouble to fully state the rule of law
| upon which the court acts.
| This is a suit for the breach of a con-
tract of suretyship. Neither in morals nor
| in law can a man be held to answer for
| the act of another unless he agrees so
| to be bound, or occupies such relations to
| that other that the law declares and
| deduces from that relation responsibility
| for the acts and doings of that other
| How far the sureties are bound on the
contract here, depends purely upon the
| legal effect of that contract. The law
| inexorably exacts that before the surety
is compelled to answer for the principal s
default it must clearly appear that
| the duty brcachedTis one which the surety
| promised the principal would perform
| Fair doubts are resolved in favor of the
surety.
| What was the responsibility of the