Smedley v. Commonwealth
Smedley v. Commonwealth
Opinion of the Court
Affirming.
Hiram Smedley was county court clerk of Mc-Cracken county, Ky., and Ms coappellant,- the Title, Guaranty & Trust Company of Scranton, Pa., was his surety. While Smedley was clerk, he collected $418, which he failed to pay to the commonwealth or account for according to section 4242, Ky. St. (Russell’s St. sec. 6171). W. M. Husbands, the revenue agent for that county, by direction of the State Auditor, instituted this action for the recovery of this money with the penalty prescribed by the section of the statutes referred to. Appellants filed an answer, but' failed to state facts therein sufficient to constitute a defense, and a demurrer was sustained to it. It appears from the record that an amended answer was offered, which the lower court also conceived did not state a defense to the action, and refused to permit it to be filed. This amendment is not copied into the record. Therefore we can not determine whether the lower court erred in not permitting it to be filed. The lower court rendered a judgment for $418 and 20 per cent, damages, as provided in the section referred to, in favor of the commonwealth, and then adjudged that appellants should pay an additional 20 per cent, for the benefit of the revenue agent for his services in prosecuting the action.
Appellants ask a reversal for the reason, as they claim, they should not be compelled to pay the double penalty. Section 4242, Ky. St., after prescribing the duties of the circuit and county court clerks with reference to the collection of money due the state and the disposition of it, concludes as follows: "If any
Appellants contend that the following part of The last-named section prohibits the adding of the last-named penalty, to wit: “The penalties herein provided for shall not be in addition to the penalties in actions in the name of the commonwealth prosecuted by the county attorney or other attorneys for the commonwealth.” This has no application to the case before ns. It means that when the county or other attorney represents the commonwealth, in connection with the revenue agent, in an action against a defaulting officer or individual, and when, by statute, a per cent, or penalty is added which is directed to be paid by the delinquent for the benefit of the county or other attorney, in such case the penalty provided in section 4263 for the benefit of revenue agents can not be added in addition to the other penalties named.
Por the reasons stated, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.