
    *Alfred J. King, plaintiff in error, vs. J. J. Newton et al., defendants in error.
    (Atlanta,
    January Term, 1873.)
    Administrator — Receiving Confederate Money — Return Liability. — -
    An administrator who received Confederate money in 1862, and does not, by his returns, or on the trial of a suit commenced against him in 1871, give any explanation of what became of the money, or what he did with it, cannot complain at being held liable for the full amount so received, especially when the verdict is for four years less interest than what was due.
    Administrator. Returns. Confederate money. Before Judge Harvey. Floyd Superior Court. January Adjourned Term, 1872.
    J. J. Newton et al., the heirs-at-law of William Newton, deceased, on June 9th, 1871, cited Alfred J. King, the administrator upon the estate of said deceased, to appear before the Ordinary of Floyd county for a final settlement. The Ordinary rendered a judgment in favor of the administrator. The plaintiffs carried the case by appeal to the Superior Court.
    Upon the trial in this last tribunal, the plaintiffs introduced a return of defendant, made on May 28th, 1867, and recorded on August 6th, 1867, showing receipts during the year 1862, to the amount of $1,996 55, and expenditures during the years 1862, 1863 and 1867, to the amount of $1,486 77Jd, leaving a balance in his hands of $509 77jd-
    ■ The defendant introduced a return made on-July 8th, 1871, the day of the trial before the Ordinary, in which it was stated that the above mentioned balance was in Confederate currency. Proof was submitted of the value of such currency in 1862. •
    The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs for $509 77, with interest from May 28th, 1867.
    The defendant moved for a new trial upon the following, among other grounds:
    1st. - Because the Court erred in charging the jury, “that both returns had been admitted, and they were admissible for wha!t they were worth; that the facts and circumstances attending the second return were also before the jury, and they could *give it such credit as they should believe it entitled to, under the circumstances; that they might believe it all, or disbelieve all or any part of his returns.”
    2d. Because the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence. The motion was overruled, and the defendant excepted'upon the grounds aforesaid.
    Alexander & Wright, for plaintiff in error.
    Wright & Feati-ierston, for defendants.
   Trifpe, Judge.

From the evidence, the administrator must have taken out letters of administration in 1860, or 1861. No return was made until May 28th, 1867. This return showed, by the entry made by the administrator himself,. a “balance on hand due estate, $509 77.” The vouchers show that amount must have been “on hand” as early as December, 1862. After proceedings were commenced against the administrator in 1871, to-wit: in July of that year, the administrator made another return reciting that the former return, by mistake, omitted to state that said balance was received by him in Confederate currency, and that such was the fact. This return does not show what the administrator did w.ith that balance; whether it was forced to remain in his hands, by there being no one then competent to receive it, and that it was thereby lost, or became worthless whilst in his possession. Indeed, no explanation in the return, or in the evidence, is given as to what became of that money, or balance.

The verdict of the jury was for $509 77, the amount of that, balance with interest from the 28th May, 1867, the date of the return.

The administrator complains that he is made to pay in good funds the amount of the Confederate currency, he received in December, 1862. The jury allowed him more than four years’ interest, and if he were entitled to more, he should have shown *it, either by his returns or on the trial. The presumption is that he used the money, or invested it for himself, and unless he show that he was unable to use it for the estate, or to pay it over to those -entitled to it, or by some evidence that he discharged his duty in relation to it, he cannot complain at now being called on for it, especially when an allowance is made to him of four years’ interest. Confederate money was not so worthless in 1862 that a trustee can ask that he shall be granted more than the jury did in this case, when he gives no account whatever as to what he did with the funds.

The other questions made in the bill of exceptions were abandoned by plaintiff in error, and the decision made at this term, in the case of Margaret Johnson vs. J. R. Janes et al., disposes of the points involved in the third and fourth grounds in the motion for a new trial.

Let the judgment refusing a new trial be affirmed.  