The Ocala evening star. [volume] (Ocala, Fla.) 1895-1943, 1920-05-12
SUPREME COURT EXCUSES RAsT
1t Seems from Its Decision that O Tax
Collector Who Has an Assistant is
Passably Safe in ApprOpriat-
ing County Funds
(St. Augustine Record)


Tallahassee, May 1.-THE supreme
court yesterday afternoon reversed
the judgment of the criminal court Of
record for Duval county in the case
of ]. W. Rast, plaintiff in error, VS..
the state of Florida, defendant in er-
ror, in which case Mr.. Rast, former
taZ collector of Duval county, was
100000 of state and county tax mon
ey.
The opinion is by Judge Ellis. all
the justices concurring.
James H. Bunch and VIM. A. Hal
loves, of Jacksonville, represented
Mr. Rast, while Attorney General
Swearingen and Assistant Attorney
General Gillis represented the state.
The opinion holds that in tax col
lector's Office, where such custom pre-
walls, any clerk, deputy or employe of
the collector, who by reason of his
employment receives in his possession
in due course of the transactions of
the Office any money for state or coun-
ty taxes and should convert the same
to his own use or secrete or withhold
the same with intention to convert it
to his own use, such employe, clerk or
deputy would, undoubtedly, be amen
able to punishment under the provis-
ion of Section 3317, General Statutes
Of Florida, and the culpability of such
clerk or deputy would not be trans
mitted to his employer or impaired to
him in the absence of guilty knowl-
edge on his part.
1t is held that the audit of Tax Col
lector Rast's books by the assistant
state auditor may we'll have showed a
shortage for which Rast was civilly
liable, "but. when the state under
takes to prove that the defendant en-
bezzled the sum of money represented
by that balance, the evidence used by
the state auditor in the statement cf
the account is not sufficient"
| 1t must be shown that the duplicate
tax receipts or copies were duplicates
or copies of receipts issued by the de-
| fenGant.
In the case at bar it is asserted that
the carbon receipts, by which was
meant the duplicates or copies of tax
receipts, show that the defendants s
name was signed by other persons. It
was stated orally that on hundreds of
such receipts the name of the defend
ant appears on the face of the receipt
to have been signed by some one other
| than him.
This statement Of fact was not de-
MED by the representative from the
attorney generals Office nor could he
well deny it, because an examination
it to be true. 1t was necessary. there
fore, for the state to prove that the
money for which such receipts so
signed and issued by persons other
than the defendant was delivered to
the defendant or put into his custody
before he could be convicted of the
embezzlement of such money. In
short, the court holds that tax col.
lector is not criminally liable for EN-.
bezzling funds merely because such
funds shown by the records in the of.
flee to have been received at the Office
have not been accounted for where
other persons than the accused re-
ccived the money. and made the en-
tries.
The court holds that where a tau
collector employs number of depu
ties who have power to sign tax re
ceipts for taxes. the collector is mo-
criminally liable for such money if i
is misappropriated or embezzled IN
less it can be shown that the monel
was actually delivered to him and Te
ceipted for by him.
In this case the defense has shown
that much tax money was receiptet
for by deputies, and, the .court holds
the state has failed to show that il
each case it was turned over to tn
, tax collector and receipted for by him
Only Rast was prosecuted by IN
state.
, JOINT DEBATE OF