Case Name: Supervisors of Kings v. Walter
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1875-03
Citations: 6 Thomp. & Cook 338
Docket Number: 
Parties: Supervisors of Kings v. Walter.
Judges: 
Reporter: Thompson & Cook's Supreme Court Reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 338–341

Head Matter:
Supervisors of Kings v. Walter.
Statutes of limitation—one year statute does not apply to fraud/alent acts of sheriff
The one year statute of limitation held not to apply to an action by the supervisors of a county against the sheriff to recover moneys paid on. fraudulent vouchers for the board of fictitious prisoners in the county jail.
APPEAL by defendant from an order at special term sustaining a demurrer to the answer.
The action was brought by the board of supervisors of the county of Kings against Anthony Walter. The complaint alleged that defendant was at certain times sheriff of said county and had the custody of the persons committed to the county jail; that he was entitled to a certain fee for receiving and discharging prisoners, and that it was the duty of the board of supervisors to audit the accounts of defendant for the board of such prisoners; that defendant presented certain false accounts and vouchers for the board of persons who were never committed to or confined in the jail; that the board of supervisors, relying on the truth of the accounts and vouchers, audited and caused the same to be paid, etc. The answer admitted that defendant was sheriff, and that he presented to the board of supervisors his accounts against the county for the board of persons committed to and confined in the,county jail during the times mentioned, and that such accounts were audited and paid, and denied each and every other allegation in the complaint; and further alleged, that the cause of action did not accrue within a year.
The plaintiff demurred to the answer, on the ground of insufficiency in not stating facts sufficient to constitute a defense.
Clement & Crooke, for appellant.
Winchester Britton, for respondent.
Present—Barnard, P. J., Gilbert and Tappen,'JJ.

Opinion:
Barnard, P. J.
I do not think that the liability sought to be enforced in this action is the result of an act done- by the defendant, as sheriff, in his official capacity, and by virtue of his office. The defendant was sheriff, and as such had the official duty to board the prisoners in the jail, but the allegation is that the defendant, by means of a sworn bill and false vouchers, procured payment for boarding fictitious prisoners, "persons who were never committed to, received at, or confined in, boarded at, or discharged from said jail." It is a fraud of the gravest description, and one which procured a large sum of money, 824,122.25, from the public treasury.
The short statute of limitation (one year) for acts honestly done by sheriffs, by virtue of their office, could not have been intended to cover up such a case.
The order should be affirmed, with costs.