City of Pittsburgh v. Ihrig

Citations

• 256 Pa. 410
• 100 A. 957
• 1917 Pa. LEXIS 629

Syllabus

<p>Public officers — Police magistrate — Accounts — Audit — Settlement — Surcharge—Defenses—Evidence—Fraud—Act of March 7, 1901, P. L. £0.</p> <p>1. In a proceeding against a police magistrate and his surety to recover a balance shown to he due on an account settled and filed by a city controller under the provisions of the Act of March 7, 1901, P. L. 20, where it appears that on several prior occasions during defendant officer’s term audits of the defendant’s books had been made by the controller, although irregular and informal, such prior examinations constituted valid audits and settlements of the accounts and were conclusive upon the parties if not fraudulently procured.</p> <p>2. Only where the reports of audits are regularly made and filed by the proper officials as the law directs, have they the conclusiveness of judgments, not subject to collateral attack by the parties thereto even for fraud.</p> <p>3. As fraud may be established by the evidence of a single witness, it was error to charge the jury, in such case, that fraud must be proven by the testimony of two witnesses, or by that of one witness, with corroborating circumstances, and the judgment for defendants was reversed.</p>