Richmond Enquirer

was not admitted by the court. The case then stood on the pleas of performance, and the issue on the part of the Commonwealth was, that Preston had received during the year for which the defendants were bound, the sum of $130,510 77, and had not accounted for the same. To sustain this issue, the Commonwealth offered the Auditor as a witness, to prove the facts stated in his report to the Legislature of the preceding session, on which the motion was founded. The defendants objected to the Auditor as incompetent, on the ground that he was interested, being a party to the record, and that his testimony went to charge himself with a balance on settlement. The court after hearing much argument on both sides, overruled the objection, and the Auditor was sworn and examined at great length. He proved the facts stated in his report, and that the balance of $130,510 77 was correctly stated. The defendants then offered several witnesses to prove that the treasury books were not correctly kept--that there were many errors and omissions in them--that large sums had been received and not entered--that others had been entered as received which never had been--that the accounts current with the banks were not correctly kept, and that the balance due from the banks was much overstated--and that in short, the books did not shew the true state of the treasury. They also proved by the same witnesses, that the Auditor's report was founded on the treasury books alone, without any examination into their accuracy--that he had no personal knowledge of the facts stated in it, and that it was impossible from the books to ascertain what sums had actually come to the hands of the Treasurer. The Commonwealth in reply, proved by the same witnesses, that the errors and omissions alluded to, arose from the negligence and ignorance of the clerks--that they occurred in almost every department of the public accounts--that the Treasurer was in the habit of receiving large sums of money without giving any receipt or making any entry--that he was in the daily habit of drawing money from the banks without authority--that he was in the habit of keeping large sums of money in his own house without any security--that he was in the habit of lending public money to individuals without any authority--and that in short, his whole conduct in relation to the public money was irregular and improper. The case occupied the court about ten days, and was argued with great ability and learning by the counsel on both sides. The defendants' counsel insisted that the Commonwealth had failed to prove that any specific sum of money had come to the hands of Preston during the year--that the treasury books were the only evidence offered, and that they were proved to be incorrect and unreliable--that the Auditor's report was founded on them, and that it was therefore entitled to no credit--that the Commonwealth had offered no evidence of any specific sum received by Preston, except the entries on the books, and that as those were proved to be incorrect, there was no evidence to sustain the issue--that the court could not take judicial notice of the acts of the Legislature, or of the reports of committees--and that the only evidence was the treasury books, which were proved to be incorrect. The Commonwealth's counsel insisted that the treasury books were prima facie evidence--that the Treasurer was bound to keep them correctly--that the errors and omissions were caused by his own negligence and ignorance--that he was bound to account for all the money which came to his hands--that the Auditor's report was founded on the books, and that it was the duty of the court to take it as evidence--that the court could take judicial notice of the acts of the Legislature, and of the reports of committees--and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the issue. The court after mature deliberation, decided that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the issue--that the treasury books were prima facie evidence--that the errors and omissions were caused by the negligence of the Treasurer--that the Auditor's report was entitled to credit--and that the balance of $130,510 77 was correctly stated. The jury were then sworn to assess the damages, and after hearing the evidence, returned a verdict for the Commonwealth for the sum of $130,510 77, with interest from the 15th of January 1820, till paid. The defendants excepted to the decision of the court, and prayed an appeal to the General Court, which was granted. The court then adjourned.