Beaver v. State ex rel. Heaston

• Decision Date: 11 April 1890
• Citation: 124 Ind. 324,24 N.E. 242
• Parties: Beaver et al. v. State ex rel. Heaston, County Auditor.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

124 Ind. 324

24 N.E. 242

Beaver et al.

v.State ex rel.Heaston, County Auditor.¹

Supreme Court of Indiana.

April 11, 1890.

Appeal from circuit court, Grant county; M. Winfield, Special Judge.

Branyan & Spencer, Milligan & Whitelock, Cobb & Watkins, and Charles, Childs, Harvey, Baldwin & Paulus, for appellants.E. C. Vaughn, J. B. Kenner, and John I. Dille, for appellee.

Elliott, J.

The complaint is founded on a bond executed by Henry Beaver and his sureties, to secure the performance by Beaver of the duties of treasurer of Huntington county.The dispute is as to an item of $12,000 which the relator claims is due from Beaver, and for which it is alleged he has failed to account.The special finding of facts made by the trial court is quite full, but it is unnecessary to state the facts at much length, since it is conceded that Beaver did receive $12,000 from his predecessor in office, Daniel Christian, and that he is chargeable with that amount.As we understand counsel for the appellants, their contention is that he has accounted for the amount received from Christian, but that he has been wrongfully twice charged with the amount; thus making it appear that he owes $12,000, whereas he in fact is not in debt to the county in any amount.It is true that the record shows that Beaver was charged with $12,000 in an erroneous mode, in this: that the amount was made up of fictitious items, instead of the correct one, namely, the amount received from Christian.But, while it is true that the items of the charge were not the true ones, inasmuch as the true item was the $12,000 received by Christian on account of what was called the “Stults Gravel-Road Fund,” and by him paid to Beaver, and not the fictitious items stated, still it is also true that Beaver did receive $12,000 on account of the Stults gravel-road from Christian.For this sum he has not accounted, and he remains liable for it.The fact that the charge was not made, as it should have been, for the money received from Christian, does not exonerate Beaver.As he did in fact obtain the sum of $12,000 belonging to the public funds, he must account for it, notwithstanding the error in making up the items of the charge.If the fictitious items be eliminated, the ultimate result is unaffected, for the real item must be charged against Beaver, so that the amount of the charge against him is, in the end, unchanged.There is evidence sustaining the finding of the trial court that Beaver...