Case Name: Micajah B. Highsmith et al. v. The State
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1860-10
Citations: 25 Supp. Tex. 137
Docket Number: 
Parties: Micajah B. Highsmith et al. v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 25 Supp.
Pages: 137–140

Head Matter:
Micajah B. Highsmith et al. v. The State.
A copy of the account of an assessor and collector of taxes, with an acknowledgment of indebtedness to the State, cannot bo admitted in evidence upon the certificate of the Comptroller, in the absence of any statute giving to them the dignity of records of his office. (See Albright v. The Governor, 25 Tex., 687, for the same principle; Paschal’s Dig., Art. 3806, Note 889.)
Appeal from Bastrop. The case was tried before Hon. A. W. Terrell, one of the district judges.
This suit was brought in the name of “ the 'State of Texas,” for the use and benefit of the State, against M. B. Highsmith, assessor and collector óf taxes, and B. H. Grimes, H. Cocheron, and Phil. Claiborne, sureties on his official bond, executed on the 18th day of August, 1856, alleging that said Highsmith had been duly elected and qualified as assessor and collector of taxes for Bastrop ’ county.
The plaintiff filed, as a part of his amended petition, an account current, with the following caption: “M. B. High-smith, A. & C. Bastrop county, in account current with Comptroller óf Public Accounts for 1856”—the balance shown thereby to be due from the assessor and collector being a part of the amount sued for, to wit, $918 91. Attached to the account was the following certificate:
“ Comptroller’s Office, Austin, March 5,1858.
“I certify the within to be a correct copy of the original account on file in this office. Given under my hand and seal of office, the date above written.
“James B. Shaw, Comptroller.”
This account contained merely items or entries in the books, but no copies of vouchers, returns, receipts, or other evidences of indebtedness. The account charged the assessor with the accounts which were collectable in virtue of assessments, and the petition alleged that he had collected, and failed to pay over the same.
The defendants answered by general denial.
On the trial, the plaintiff offered in evidence the account, to the introduction of which the defendants objected—
Because the account showed upon its face that it was a copy, and the loss or destruction of the original, or its non-production was not accounted for.
Because it was not a copy of the records of any public office of the State or any court of the State, and therefore not admissible in evidence.
Which objections were overruled, and the account allowed to be read as evidence, to which the defendants excepted.
On the trial, the court instructed the jury that the account current shows the amount the plaintiff is entitled to recover, subject to any credits that may be allowed the defendants.
Chandler Turner and Claiborne, for appellants.
M. D. Graham, Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
Bell, J.
—We are of opinion that the objection to the admissibility of the copy of the account of the assessor and collector, Highsmith, which whs marked " exhibit B," ought to have been sustained. The court below doubtless regarded it as a copy of a record of the Comptroller's office, and admitted it in evidence as such. It appears to be a statement of the account of the assessor and collector with the Comptroller, made by the assessor and collector himself, and attached to the account as an acknowledgment by the assessor of a balance due. There is no statute which requires the assessors to make such acknowledgments, and no statute which gives to such a paper as the one in question the dignity of a public record. Doubtless the practice- has grown up in the Comptroller's office, of obtaining such statements and such acknowledgments from the assessors, where it was practicable to do so, for the convenience of the office, and for the greater security of the public interests. But copies of such papers cannot be admitted in evidence upon the certificate of the Comptroller, in the absence of any statute giving to them the dignity of records of his office. Such an acknowledgment would, therefore, have to be treated like any other admission in writing. It could only be read in evidence by consent, or upon proof of its execution. This same point was considered in the case of Albright v. The State, during the last term at Tyler, which case is not yet reported, hut will be found in 25 Tex. (Albright v. The Governor, 25 Tex., 687.)
The judgment of the court below is
Reversed and the cause remanded.