Case Name: Joshua Freeman, Treasurer of Public Buildings for Surry County, vs. Jesse Lester, former Treasurer of Public Buildings for same County
Court: North Carolina Court of Conference
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1800-06
Citations: 1 Cam. & Nor. 73
Docket Number: 
Parties: Joshua Freeman, Treasurer of Public Buildings for Surry County, vs. Jesse Lester, former Treasurer of Public Buildings for same County.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 73–75

Head Matter:
Joshua Freeman, Treasurer of Public Buildings for Surry County, vs. Jesse Lester, former Treasurer of Public Buildings for same County.
The following case was agreed to by the Counsel of the parties : Lester was elected Treasurer of Public Buildings by the County Court of Surry, at Term, 1796, under the act of the General Assembly, passed in the year 1795, who gave bond and security for executing his office, and continued in the same, till 1798, when the Court of Surry proceeded, under the Act passed at the Session of the General Assembly in the year 1797, to the election of a Treasurer of Public Buildings, when Joshua Freeman, the present Plaintiff, was elected by a majority of the Justices of said County, and entered into bond and security for the performance of his duty.
Freeman gave Lester ten days notice, that under the last-mentioned Act, he should at the next Court to be held for said County, move for judgment and award of execution against him, for all monies which he had received, as the former Treasurer, and which he had failed to account for and pay over to his successor in office. It is admitted by Lester, that he received the sum of two hundred pounds from the Treasurer of the State, to be expended according to the directions of the act 1795.
The County Court gave judgment for the sum of two hundred pounds, with interest, agreeable to the Act of 1797, from which judgment Lester appealed to the Superior Court for the District of Salisbury.
DUNCAN CAMERON, Atto. for Plff.
FRANCIS LOCKE, Atto. for Def.
The question arising on this statement is, whether, after Lester had been appointed under the act of 1795, the act of 1797, vacating his office, was a constitutional law or not.

Opinion:
By the Court.
We cannot thus incidentally decide upon the validity of the act by which Lester was removed from his office. That its authority was sufficient to sanction the present action, and to justify the recovery made, cannot admit of any serious doubt.