State v. Marston

Cal. District Court

State v. Marston

1 Cal. Dist. Ct. 122

California District Court·Decided July 15, 1857·Published

Opinion

Hester, J.

overruled the demurrer as untenable, under the conditions of the bond given to the State for the performance of duties as County Treasurer, and the duties were to safely keep and make proper returns of the State and County moneys. The answer also was no defense, as one of the duties of the Treasurer is carefully to guard against theft, for that is the most ostensible requirement for a custodian of public funds, the presumption being in favor of an officer’s honesty. United States vs. Prescott, 3 How., 575.

Judgment for the State.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hester, J.

overruled the demurrer as untenable, under the conditions of the bond given to the State for the performance of duties as County Treasurer, and the duties were to safely keep and make proper returns of the State and County moneys. The answer also was no defense, as one of the duties of the Treasurer is carefully to guard against theft, for that is the most ostensible requirement for a custodian of public funds, the presumption being in favor of an officer’s honesty. United States vs. Prescott, 3 How., 575.

Judgment for the State.

State v. Marston, 1 Cal. Dist. Ct. 122 (Cal. Super. Ct. 1857).

Pincite

1 Cal. Dist. Ct. 122 (State v. Marston) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.