lawful currency of the United States of America, in part payment and satisfaction of the judgment recovered by Trusten C. Gilman against the county of Contra Costa. The said sum is paid out of the Gilman Judgment Fund, which was levied and collected in pursuance of an act of the Legislature of the State of California, entitled an "Act providing for the payment of a judgment in favor of Trusten C. Gilman against the county of Contra Costa, approved March 14, 1860," and by order of the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa county, made on the sixth of August, eighteen hundred and sixty, a copy being annexed to this receipt, and the said sum is received in part satisfaction of said judgment, in accordance with the provisions of the said Act of the Legislature, and I hereby authorize satisfaction of the amount receipted for to be entered." There were thirteen different payments made, and thirteen receipts given by Sharp, as assignee of Gilman, to the Treasurer, of like tenor to the above. The debt was fully paid, as provided in said Act, on June 19, 1862.

That on March 15, 1860, prior to the passage of the Act of March 14th mentioned, George F. Sharp, as the assignee of Gilman, commenced an action in the District Court of Solano county to revive the judgment of March 22, 1856, in favor of Gilman and against the county, for twenty thousand four hundred and twenty-seven dollars, with five per cent. per month interest. Judgment was entered in said action in favor of Sharp, assignee of Gilman, by default, in the Clerk's office, on July 18, 1860, for eighty-five thousand and forty-two dollars and eighty cents, to be an interest at five per cent. per month. When this action was commenced a demurrer was filed, but after the Act of March 14, 1860, the officers of the county, believing that the Act of March 14th provided for a full settlement of all matters growing out of the Gilman bridge transaction, and intending also in good faith to pay the claim, as provided in that Act, and believing that Gilman and his assignees also intended to act in good faith in accepting the terms of said Act, the county paid no further attention to the last named suit; and afterwards, on July 18, 1860, Sharp applied to the Clerk of Solano county, who entered in a vacation judgment by default against the county for eighty-five thousand and forty-two dollars and eighty cents. No action was taken by Sharp on this last judgment until long after he had been fully paid, as stated, on and prior to June 19, 1862.

That on July 16, 1865, Sharp commenced another action to revive the last judgment of eighty-five thousand and forty-two dollars and eighty cents against the county. The action was commenced in the Fifteenth District Court in San Francisco City and county. The county defended the action on the ground that the debt had been fully paid, satisfied and discharged. The cause was tried, and judgment was rendered in the District Court in favor of the county. The Court decided that the county had fully paid and satisfied the said debt and the said

judgment, and ordered and directed that Sharp should cancel and satisfy said judgment of record. Sharp appealed from said judgment to the Supreme Court. The judgment of the District Court was affirmed. The Supreme Court held that the county was not, either legally or equitably, indebted upon the demand in any sum whatever, but on the contrary, that the county had, under the Act of March 14, 1860, fully paid and discharged the said claim. The case is entitled Sharp vs. Contra Costa County, and is reported in 34 Cal. Reports, p. 284.

Gilman's claim is now (1872) made to the Legislature for the same identical claim for building the bridge across the San Antonio creek, and in relation to which the litigation named was had, and the same for which payment was provided in the Act of March 14, 1860, and is the same which was fully paid and satisfied under said Act. His county warrant has been surrendered and canceled; his judgment has been paid, satisfied, and discharged, and satisfaction entered of record; he now makes a claim against the county of over six hundred and seventy-six thousand and ninety dollars upon this claim. It is submitted that the county has not only paid the claim, but has actually paid more than double what was due to him according to law. When Gilman received his warrant for seven thousand four hundred dollars on March 8, 1853, and presented the same to the Treasurer, the Treasurer made the indorsement thereon required by law. From that time the debt drew ten per cent. per annum, interest, and no more. Section ten of the Act concerning County Treasurers, passed March 27, 1850, (Statutes, 1850, p. 115), provides when any warrant shall be presented to the County Treasurer for payment, and the same is not paid for the want of funds, the Treasurer shall indorse thereon "Not paid for want of funds," annexing the date of presentation, and sign his name thereto; and from that time till redeemed, said order or warrant shall bear ten per cent. per That section of the statute has been in force ever since it was passed in 1850. When Gilman accepted his warrant, and presented it to the Treasurer and procured it to be indorsed by him, and had received it back into his possession, he knew or was bound to know what the law was; that from that time no officer was authorized by law to pay any greater rate of interest on that debt than ten per cent. per annum. The interest on the debt up to June 19, 1862-the time when the full amount was paid under the Act of 1860-being nine years and three and one-third months, would have been six thousand eight hundred and sixty-five dollars, which, added to the principal, seven thousand four hundred dollars, amounted to fourteen thousand two hundred and sixty-five dollars. The county actually paid thirty-one thousand six hundred and eleven dollars and twentyone cents, being seventeen thousand three hundred and forty-six dollars and twenty-one cents more than was due on the warrant, according to the law concerning indebtedness of counties.

annum.

The facts in this case are fully set out and authenticated in the record on the appeal of the action of Sharp vs. The County of Contra Costa, in the Supreme Court in the case reported in 34 Cal. p. 284. The transcript, briefs and decision of the District Court, with its findings, and the testimony in the case, will be found bound in volume seventy of California Supreme Court Record, pp. 50 to 102.

The petitioner has no claims whatever upon the county, either legal or equitable; but he has been paid by the county actually more than twice as much as was justly due him, and his present claim is a sham without foundation, and is neither supported by equity nor good conscience, and should be postponed indefinitely.

This is the full history of that vexatious suit, tersely and fully put forth as already said by that learned exponent of the law, Judge Thomas A. Brown.

We will close this chapter by calling the attention of our readers to the Tables herewith appended. In the second will be found a list of taxes levied since the foundation of the county, exclusive of the poll-tax, while in the third we have handed to posterity a full list of all the officers who have served the county, from State Senator to Constable, with the votes received at the various elections. Also notes showing the appointments made by the Court of Sessions and Boards of Supervisors between each general election. This Table is as complete as it is possible to make, and all records of the county have been thoroughly searched for the purpose of making it perfectly correct and reliable, and it is with no little degree of pride that we present to our patrons the result of our labors, feeling well assured that it will be fully appreciated by all who have occasion to refer to it.

Table showing the Total Assessed Value of Property in Contra Costa County, from 1850 to 1881.