Case Name: The Town of Ontario, App'lt, v. Francis A. Hill, Supervisor, Resp't
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-10-23
Citations: 33 N.Y. St. Rep. 937
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Town of Ontario, App’lt, v. Francis A. Hill, Supervisor, Resp’t.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 33
Pages: 937–944

Head Matter:
The Town of Ontario, App’lt, v. Francis A. Hill, Supervisor, Resp’t.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department,
Filed October 23, 1890.)
Towns—Supervisors—Monet received from former supervisor.
The former supervisor had in his hands moneys belonging to the contingent fund and the dog fund, which he testified that he paid to defendant." Defendant denied receiving the dog fund. It appeared that at the time the money was paid, defendant, after a careful examination of the book containing the accounts, gave a receipt for all the moneys, specifying the amount belonging to each fund. It also appeared that in the new accounts opened by him, the proper amount was entered in the contingent fund account, but that in the dog fund account the same amount was written and lines then drawn across, and that under such writing there was a careful erasure of something. Held, that in view of these facts and of other attempted alterations of the book, the evidence established that defendant received the moneys belonging to the dog fund.
(Corlett, J., dissents.)
Appeal upon questions of law and fact to this court from a judgment entered July 27,1889, atan equity term held in Wayne county, dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint
The appeal was argued at a former term of this court, before two justices only, and they being unable to agree as to the disposition of the case, it was reargued.
Camp & Dunwell, for app’lt; Mr. Bentley, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Lewis, J.
The defendant was elected a supervisor of the town of Ontario, Wayne county, in March 1883. He continued to hold office up to the trial of this action. As such supervisor he was the lawful custodian of the town moneys, with the exception of the highway, bridges, school and poor funds.
It was his duty to keep, in a book to be provided for that purpose, a correct account of the moneys received as supervisor, and account annually to the town board for all moneys received and paid out by him. His immediate predecessor in that office was one Stephen FT. Main. Main had in his possession at the close of his term of office some articles of property belonging to the town, consisting of law books, account books, etc., and the sum of $468.93 in money. Two hundred and forty-three dollars and fifty-eight cents of this money belonged to what was kept and known as the contingent fund, and $225.35 was known as the dog fund. Main and Hill had a settlement of the supervisor's accounts in March, 1883. Main delivered to Hill the articles of property he held belonging to the town and a sum of money.
The principal question involved in this appeal is what amount. The plaintiff claimed that Main paid the defendant both contingent and dog funds amounting to $468.93.
The defendant admitted receiving the contingent fund, but denied that he received the other sum. This action was brought to recover the $225.35, the dog fund.
Other causes of action were alleged in the complaint and were litigated, but are not involved in this appeal.
The learned trial judge decided that the defendant received from Main $243.58 only, being the contingent fund, and dismissed the plaintiffs-complaint.
The decision under review having been made by a careful and able judge of this court who had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses, and my learned associates to whom this appeal was submitted upon the former hearing having been unable to agree as to the proper disposition thereof, I have given the case a very careful examination, and will give a brief review of the facts which have led my mind to the conclusion that the defendant received from Main the $225.35 in controversy.
An important item of evidence was called to our attention upon the argument which does not seem to have been brought to the attention of the trial judge. Reference will be made to it hereafter.
Main had at the time of the settlement with defendant in his hands the two funds, amounting to $468.93. He had a settlement with defendant either on the 17th or 22d of March, 1883. The date is unimportant
It is not disputed that he delivered to his successor the supervisor's book in which was contained his accounts with the town as supervisor. One was kept and known as the contingent account and the other as the Dog Fund account. The books plainly show that Main was indebted to the town for both these funds.
He paid to the defendant at the settlement a sum of money, at least $243.58. Hill gave him a receipt for the books and $468.93 in money. The account book was delivered to Hill, and he has had possession of it ever since.
Main and Hill were the only witnesses who testified as- to what took place at the settlement. They may be said to be equally interested in the result of the action. Main is not directly interested, but indirectly, and (has the same motive to testify untruthfully as Hill. Main testified positively to the payment of both sums. Hill in nearly as positive terms denied that he received the Dog Fund.
A receipt had been prepared by Main before the meeting for settlement. He testifies that he paid the money to Hill, and that Hill signed the receipt. The receipt was elaborately drawn and reads:
" Ontario, March 17, 1883.
Received of S. H. Main, my predecessor in the office of supervisor of the town of Ontario, the following : " (Here are mentioned various books, etc.) "Also received cash to balance the contingent fund, as appears from the supervisor's book, amounting to $243.58. Also, the dog fund on hand at the town settlement, $225.35; making a total of cash received, $468.93.
(Signed) Francis A. Hill,
Supervisor
There is no mistaking its contents. Any person of ordinary intelligence, certainly a man of sufficient intelligence to be a supervisor, could comprehend its provisions. It was a writing of considerable length and importance. The settlement was deliberately made. Main testifies that he remained at Hill's house over night, and that the accounts were carefully examined. It would require strong and positive evidence to satisfy my mind that Hill signed such a paper under such circumstances without reading it and understanding its contents fully.
The supervisor's book, as we have seen, contains Main's account. It plainly appeared upon page 149 of the book headed " dog fund," under date of 'February 27, 1883, that Main was indebted at the time of the settlement, on account of the dog fund, in the sum of $225.35. The same item again appears upon page 152 of the book, but is entered in such a manner that a person unskilled in bookkeeping might possibly not understand it; and the same may be said of the contingent fund account of $243.58, on pages 151 and 153. We must assume that the defendant examined these entries, as they were the last accounts contained in the book made by Main.
The book came into defendant's possession March 22, 1883, and it appears that on that date he opened his account as supervisor with the town. He credited the contingent fund account with the sum of $243.58, just the amount as shown by Main's account, and the same sum his receipt acknowledged as having received of Main.
Upon the credit column of the dog fund account, on the same page, appear the same figures $243.58, with ink lines drawn across them, clearly showing an intention to convey the idea that they were written there by mistake.
An examination of the paper under these last mentioned figures shows that something was written there and erased before writing the figures through which the lines were drawn. The erasure was done with very great care, with an evident intention of not injuring the texture of the paper so as to attract attention.
From a casual examination of the page containing the account the erasure would not be likely to attract one's attention. It does not appear from the case that this alteration of the book was called to the attention of the trial judge.
The figures "234.58," which belonged upon the contingent fund column, might have been written upon the dog fund column and credited to that fund by mistake and then erased, but something was written to the credit of the dog fund account and then carefully erased, and the figures "243.58" written over the erasure, and then these figures erased by drawing the pen across .them.
What figures were written there first we are not advised, but I am forced to believe .that the dog fund was credited with the sum of $225.35 by the first entry and then erased and the other figures entered.
It is very improbable that any other figures would have been entered there, for the figures representing the contingent fund had already been entered upon the proper column, and it is hardly possible that the same figures which appear credited to the dog fund were written there and then erased, and the mistake of writing them again made.
I am satisfied that each fund was credited with the figures belonging to it, making the sum of $468.93, the sum mentioned in the receipt, and that the figures "243.58 " were written over the erasure with a view of concealing evidence thereof.
There is an entry on page 153 of the book reading: " March 22. Balance handed over to my successor, F. A. Hill, $243.58," and signed by Mr. Main. This entry is relied upon by the respondent a"s evidence that that sum only was paid to him. That was the balance of the contingent fund in Main's hands. The entry was properly made, even if the dog fund was also paid to Hill.
If the entry had read: " Balances handed over," etc., it would be evidence tending to show that that entry covered all the balances in Main's hands, and from an examination of the book it would seem that some one had appreciated 'the importance of its thus reading, for it will be seen that á somewhat bungling attempt has been made to add the letter " s " to the word " balance." The letter is in a different colored ink, and stands at a veiy different angle with the other letters composing the word. The letter "s " is written perpendicular, while the balance of the entry is in a distinctly back hand. I do not think the entry strengthens the respondent's case.
The defendant's evidence as to the amount of money paid lum at the settlement by Mr. Main is not satisfactory. It appears from his evidence that he must have received a larger sum of money than he has accounted for.
Main's evidence as to the amount of money paid is not quite clear, but the items of the account entering into the settlement were somewhat complicated and involved, and considering the length of time which elapsed after" the settlement and before the trial of the case, the want of recollection of the witnesses of the facts ought not to excite surprise^ "
I think the evidence as presented upon' this appear quite conclusively establishes that the defendant received and has failed to account for the $225.35 claimed in the plaintiff's complaint, and had all the evidence before us been presented to the trial court, I am satisfied he would have so foúnd. The .uthority of the plaintiff to bring the action is called in question by the respondent.. The complaint was not dismissed upon that ground. I think the proceedings of the board of supervisors applying the provisions of the law of 1864 to Ontario county, they being in the nature of legislative enactments, are proper to be considered on this appeal, but without them I see no difficulty in the plaintiff's maintaining the action.
The judgment should be reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event.
Dwight, P. J., concurs.