that his delay in paying over was owing to his se-
vere illness. Both he and the present district attor.
ney have been instructed to call on him for payment,
and to bring suit on his bond, if not made.
Upon failure of the usual efforts to collect by draft,
suit was directed, October 23, 1843. At June term,
1844, the case was continued for service.

Upon failure of the usual efforts to collect by draft, $32 35
suit was directed, January 31, 1844. Judgment
was obtained, June, 1844, against principal and
sureties, for amount, with interest.

3541 00

78 67

The amount originally due, and for which suit was
brought, was $4,241; of this sum, $700, the amount
of the penalty of the bond, was collected from John
Brahan in 1826, leaving balance due as stated,
Judgment was obtained on separate suits against
each defendant, and executions issued, but the
amount of judgment does not appear from the record.
From the antiquity of the case, it is not probable
this debt can be collected.

Upon failure of the usual efforts to collect by draft,
suit was directed, August 29, 1827. Judgment was
obtained in 1828, for the amount, with interest.
Repeated executions issued, and were returned, no
property.

The amount due by Smoot on the 25th January, 1060 62
1828, was $4,216 21. Upon failure to collect by
draft, suit was directed, May 22, 1828, on two dif-
ferent bonds. Judgment was obtained on both,
in May, 1829; upon which, Smoot paid $1,000 in
cash on account, and gave six promissory notes for
the balance, payable on the 1st January, 1830,
1831, and 1832; three signed by Wilson and others,
and three by Chamberlane and Ellis. Three of
these notes, two signed by the first set of sureties,
and one signed by the second set of sureties, had
been extinguished in February, 1831; leaving three
unpaid, amounting to $2,056 48. Upon the re-
organization of the department, in 1836, the efforts
to collect the balance were renewed; and executions

$17 20

having been issued in 1839, Smoot applied for further indulgence, offering to mortgage real estate, and assign a judgment in his favor as security. This office assented on the 14th May, 1839, instructing the district attorney at the same time to take care that the interest of the United States was not in any manner jeoparded. He took the mortgage, but without obtaining the assignment (so far as appears) of the judgment or the assent of the sureties. Upon sale of the mortgaged property in August, 1840, $2,353 13 was realized, which, deducted from the debt and interest to that time, left due the sum of $1,060 62. It has been supposed until lately that this balance could not be recovered; but the district attorney states that he has recently found property, and it is hence supposed it may be made. Upon failure of the usual efforts to collect by draft, suit was directed in Alabama, February 13, 1834. The sureties were, Horatio Steele, stated to have died insolvent about five years before, and William B. Duncan, removed some years before to Arkansas. It was ascertained in 1838 that no suit had been brought, and, further, that Brown had gone to Texas. The sureties were at this period discharged.

Collected by suit, with 68 cents interest, June 13,

1842.

Upon failure of the usual efforts to collect by draft,
suit was directed, February 13, 1837. Judgment
was obtained, May, 1838, against Wilkins and
Fooshe, for amount, with interest. Execution is-
sued, and was returned, no property. Having in-
quired of the successor of Wilkins, he reported, Feb.
ruary 17, 1840, that neither defendant had any
property.

Upon failure of the usual efforts to collect by draft, $216 20
suit was directed, January 2, 1836. The amount
claimed was $292 18; but the judgment obtained,
May, 1838, was for only $216 20. Execution is-
sued, and was returned, December, 1838, levied on
real estate, but not in time to sell. The attention
of the district attorney was called to this case, Feb-
ruary 6, 1840. He reported that measures were
going on in this case and others to make the money.
The probability is, that it has been overlooked, and
that the money may yet be made.
Upon failure of the usual efforts to collect by draft,
suit was directed, February 13, 1837, but the de-
fendants were returned, not found. Horner was the
only one against whom a recovery could strictly have
been expected. Repeated efforts were made to as-
certain his residence. Mr. Green, special agent,
reported, May 30, 1842, that he had left the county,

$494 12

171 7L

55 96