The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1907-02-03

the sum OF ssos7.5z. collected on &c.
count OF tho Todd tax tickets, WINS
on November ]. 1906, IN the possess
sion Of respondent. He was then
short sSs3,l6. the balance Of the orig
inal shortage. and the court Is OF
opinion, after giving respondent the
benefit Of the most favorable view
tliht cf.n be taken In his behalf, that
the said amount of sSSS.16, balance Of
said original shortage, was clearly
county funds, and the residue OF said
shortage, which was made good on
tho 10th day Of October--viz., s3,2e3.7O
game from money collected BY said
treasurer In his official capacity. in
which the county had an interest.
THIS view Is further confirmed by the
conduct of respondent, who, when
asked by Boudar and Company, the
examiners of the office: "What was
your reason, Mr.. 1iochler. for using this
money in the way YOU did?' said:
II did Il to save the discounts that
the bank would have charged me"
He went on further and stated that
he had a line OF credit ut the State
Bank of So 600, which hc could ut any
time call on to make any account good
tint was necessary. and that he did
not Use this money with any intention
OF wronEdolne. but simply to save
interest or discount on these notes.
r., page So And also. when called
before the board of supervisors of the
county to explain this shortage, his
only defense wns that lie had used
the money for his private purposes to
avoid paving discount, and did not
think II was wrong rs he had q credit
of$5.00O in the State Bank OF Virginia.
and could have replaced the money
nj any time CR.. page 64.) This ac-
ton on the part of respondent Is a
clear violation OF the express provis-
Ions of our statute, as get forth in
eectious SG4 SOC, 37t7, V. c., 1887.
aud was malfeasance In office. and
the court is required by law to per-
form the painful duty OF removing
said respondent from office.
| have been urged by the able and
learned counsel for respondent to solve
every doubt in his favor. | have done
this, and would that could see my
way clear to doubt. I.
Order of Removal.
Respondent has acted in the man
ner he has with his eyes open. When
he was appointed treasurer by this
court 1t was not then known that
Todd was short in his accounts. This
court, inasmuch as respondent was
It's appointee, md was deputy in
the Office of Todd. as soon as the
the shortage of Todd was known.
called 1t to the attention of the grand
jury and had a thorough examination
into the affairs of the treasurer's
office. and in Its charge to the said
jury told them that they must in
vestigate the acts of deputies; that
the deceased could not be reached,
and that the use OF public funds by
a treasurer for his private purposes
was malfeasance in office (as pro-
vided by section SID.
1t Is. therefore, ordered that II. C.
Hechler, treasurer of Henrico coun-
ty, be removed from Office for the
reasons set forth above, and that he
forthwith deposit all the books, and
papers in his possession as treasurer,
including all tax tickets for taxes and
leves for which he has not ac-
counted and paid into the treasury
with the clerk of this court, who
shall give q receipt therefor, and
shall hold the same subject to the
future order OF this court.
Upon the entering of this opinion, Mr..
'Flaherty. attorney for Mr.. Hechler,
ade application for a stay of proceed
rs for thirty days in order that coun-
j might consider the ACCESSIBILITY of
.aking an appeal TO the Supreme Court
his application was granted by the
ourt Judge Scott stating from the
inch that he would be glad to have
he proceedings reviewed by the superior
ourt. especially as there were some
oints OF law involved, and Mr.. Hechler
nd his deputies remain In charge of the
'vce pending further proceedings.
Will Issue Statement.
Mr. Hechler said yesterday that he
,ould probably issue statement In re-
ard to tho case when he had consulted
;ith his counsel In the meantime how
yer. he wished to say that there had
ever been time when the money of
he county was not forthcoming, and
shen his bank credits We're not suffi-
lent to cover all proper charges for
ounty and school funds. Mr. Hechler
dded that he had always been able and
eady to make good any shortage charged
" the accountants. or that any further
examination of his books might show 1t
5 probable that his public statement in
egard to the accounts involved will be
ssued during next week. Throughout the
Re lawyers on both sides of
he case have stated that they had no
eason to doubt Mr.. Hechler's intentional
lonesty or thea ability Of Mr.. Hechler
nd his boniholdhrs to make good any
heritage that might appear.
The proceedings In this case have been
,rought under the provisions OF Section
q of the Code of Virginia, as amended
Acts 1SS9-gol, the section being in force
ince December l6. 1889. Section S2i reads:
The County or Corporation or
Hastings Court shall have power
10 remove from office all county.
city and district officers elected or
appointed for their respective coun-
ty, city and district. for malfeas-
ance, misfeasance, incompetency or
gross neglect of official duty.
All proceedings under this section