The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-03-10

Iates the duty of collecting in taking q oheck which is not afterwards reanzeo. But 1t Is urged the case has no appnca- ton because the treasurer's only duty was to safely keep the fund when paid to him.
 Alston, the Probate Judge, was not collector in the sense that he was re Smred to take affirmative steps 10 cohec.. @ No statute required him to search Tor the licenses. The person intending 10 re tall uQuors applies to the Probate Judge Tor the license, and 1t is his outy 10 IS. sue It only when the amount prescriDed by the statute Is paid to him. He IS a collector only in the sense that he Is to receive she money.
 A similar duty, as we have snown, IS Imposed upon the treasurer as to the pro ceeds of the sale of he bonds III IS ms duty to receive such proceeds. The orn, cial bonds of the Prooate Judge ana County Treasurer have the same conoi- tions, and the same statute IS appiicaoie to increase their common law haority.
 Example as to Counterfeit.
 If the Treasurer had received, instead or the check, bank bills. and had deposit ed them to his credit, as he did the check and had charged himself with the sum on his account as Treasurer, causing the county the same loss as in this case, could he or his suretes, when called on for settlement plead that the bills re- ceived and receipted for were In fact counterfeit, that the Treasurer placed them to his credit in bank and that the bank had become insolvent7 The same argument could be made that is made here. that the statute made his sureties responsible only for the safe Keeping or money, and that he had received no money. The counterfeit bills would be or less value than the check in question. Would such contention constitute de- Tense to be submitted to turyf We think not. Because. if the bills were gem uine. the Treasurer having received and converted them, would be liable on his bond for the amount; if they were not genuine bills. he would be liable for neglectful or improper performance of official duty in receiving them as genuine. In either case there would be plain breach of the bond.
 Public policy requires that every officer charged with the duty of receiving and keeping public money should be held to a strict accountability. He should be re- Qutred to exercise the highest degree of vigilance. When loss has fallen on the public through his official acts, he should not be permitted to avoid responsibility by averments of the improper or neglect full performance of duties imposed on him by law. To permit such defenses would open the door to frauds which might be practtced with fmpunity. The Treasurer or other depository could lay his plans and arrange his proofs to make good the defense of his sureies by impeaching his own official acts. His own neglect or fraud would become their defense. The condition of the Treasurer's bond and consideration of public policy both forbid such defense. Murfree on Official Bonds, 8. 6y4.
 The Supreme Court has held that a custodian of publtc money could not de- fend on the ground that the money was stolen GU. s. V. Prescott, 8 How. 57S |; nor that he has been robbed of 1t (Boy- den V. U. s. B Wall. ID; nor that the notes had been accidentally destroyed by