66 THE STATE V. BROOKS. [Tyler Term,
Opinion of the court.
respect be responsible for every act performed or omission
incurred by each deputy, as though the same had been performed
or incurred by himself." (Pas. Dig., art. 7615.)
The statute further requires the deputy to take the same
oath required of the sheriff, faithfully to discharge the duties
required of him by law in the collection of taxes. (Pas.
Dig., arts. 7608, 7615.) In case of the disability, death, or
removal of the sheriff, the deputies are required to proceed
in the collection of taxes until the vacancy is filled. (Pas.
Dig., art. 7616.) In various other sections of the law the
deputy is recognized as authorized to collect taxes. (Pas.
Dig., arts. 7619-7621.)
The deputy sheriff is recognized as an officer known to
the law, (Miller v. Alexander, 13 Tex., 506,) and we think
it clear, from the foregoing provisions of the statute, that
he is an officer authorized by law to collect taxes due the
Government. Although he is appointed by the sheriff, who
may designate that part of the county within which he can
act, it is the law which gives him that official authority to
collect taxes, which it withholds from all persons except
the sheriff and his sworn deputies. In embezzling taxes
collected by him, he violates the trust reposed in him as ar.
officer by the State, and would therefore come within the
rule recognized in The State v. Johnson in construing the
kindred statute punishing embezzlement by agents and
clerks of companies and individuals. (21 Tex., 775; Pas.
Dig., art. 2421.) We think, however, that the statute under
which this indictment was found was intended to comprebend
other cases than those where there is a breach of
trust, or cases where the money embezzled was received
by virtue of the office or employment. The terms, " clerk
or other person employed about the office of such officer,"
are comprehensive enough to include a mere employee of
the sheriff though unknown to the law, and only holding
the money for the sheriff. Under this view of the law, if
the averments of the indictment were appropriate to charge
Texas. Supreme Court. Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of Texas, during the latter part of the Tyler term, 1874, and the first part of the Galveston term, 1875. Volume 42.. St. Louis, Mo.. The Portal to Texas History. http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28531/. Accessed March 13, 2014.