Matthews v. Clay County

• Decision Date: 03 July 1916
• Docket Number: 110
• Parties: MATTHEWS v. CLAY COUNTY
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

188 S.W. 564

125 Ark. 136

MATTHEWS v. CLAY COUNTY

No. 110

Supreme Court of Arkansas

July 3, 1916

Appeal from Clay Circuit Court, Eastern District; J. F. Gautney Judge; affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

F. G Taylor, J. L. Taylor and G. B. Oliver, for appellant.

The questions here are almost entirely of fact and to be determined upon the weight of the evidence, the burden of proof being on appellee. The principal one is: Did Matthews inclose the $ 6,000 in scrip, and did Cargill receive it? The evidence of appellant and his witness is clear and convincing, while inconsistencies and contradictions appear in the evidence offered by appellee. The findings of the court are clearly against the weight of the evidence. 38 Ark 482; 24 Cyc. 134; n; Kirby's Digest, § 7174.

L. Hunter and Spence & Dudley, for appellee.

This action was brought under § 7174 Kirby's Digest. The principal item is the $ 6,000 in scrip. The court sitting as a jury found against appellant on sufficient evidence. Such finding is as conclusive as the verdict of a jury, and will not be disturbed if there is evidence to support it. 90 Ark. 512; 91 Id. 108; 100 Id. 166; 104 Id. 154; 88 Id. 587; 96 Id. 606.

OPINION

HART, J.

Section 7174 of Kirby's Digest provides that whenever any error shall be discovered in the settlement of any county officer made with the county court, it shall be the duty of the court, any time within two years from the date of such settlement, to reconsider and adjust the same.

J. E. Matthews was sheriff and collector of Clay County from October 31, 1910, to October 31, 1914. During that time C. A. Cargill was treasurer of the county. On July 18, 1913, Matthews filed a settlement as collector in the county court and his settlement was duly approved by the court. It was shown that he had paid to the county treasurer all the funds with which he was chargeable as collector. On February 5, 1915, Cargill filed his petition in the county court under the section of the statute above referred to, and asked that the settlement of Matthews as collector, be reconsidered and adjusted. Certain alleged errors in the settlement were specifically named in the petition. The county court opened the settlement for the purpose of correcting errors in it and caused a restatement of the collector's account to be made. Judgment was rendered against Matthews for the amount found to be due and Matthews appealed to the circuit court.

The circuit court after hearing the testimony, restated the account of Matthews. It found in his favor in regard to certain alleged errors and against him as to certain others. The circuit court found that Matthews as collector was indebted to Clay County in the sum of $ 5,980.21 and judgment was rendered against him and his bondsmen for that amount. The case is brought before us by appeal.

It is well settled in this State than when a case is tried before a court sitting as a jury, the court's findings of fact are as conclusive on appeal as the verdict of a jury. This is conceded to be the law by counsel for Matthews but they contend that the rule is different when the trial court is properly the trier of the facts. This court has ruled adversely to their contention. When the law makes the circuit judge the trier of facts in cases, to which the constitutional right of trial by jury does not extend, the same presumption attends his findings as when a jury is waived by the parties. Jones v. Glidewell, 53 Ark. 161, 13 S.W. 723; Schuman v. Sanderson, 73 Ark. 187, 83 S.W. 940; Williams v. Buchanan, 86 Ark. 259, 110 S.W. 1024. The reason is that in cases tried at law, we only review for errors. In chancery cases there is a trial de novo in this court and the findings of facts made by a chancellor are persuasive merely. The circuit court found the issues of facts against Matthews and under the settled rules of this court, if there is any evidence of a substantial character to sustain the findings of fact made by the trial court it is our duty to uphold them. On certain of the errors alleged against Matthews the court found in his favor and inasmuch as no appeal was taken by the county, the testimony in regard to these items need not be abstracted and no further reference need be made to them. The correctness of the judgment of the circuit court against Matthews depends upon whether or not Matthews sent to Cargill as treasurer, a package of scrip amounting to $ 6,000. This is conceded by counsel for both parties.

Matthews testified that on the 7th day of May, 1913, he sent Cargill the sum of $ 14,700 by registered letter; that $ 8,700 of this amount was in bank checks of various denominations and $ 6,000 of it was in county scrip of various amounts; from fifty cents to one hundred and twenty-five dollars or more. Matthews testified positively that he got most of this scrip from the two banks in the town of...