Case ID: cow_4/html/0146-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Curia.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People, ex rel. Holley, against The Supervisors of the County of Columbia.
    A constable actotilyattcnding court, nnder the statute (sess. 42, ch. to hisSfe™titho’ ho do not actuconstable^6 Itls enough that he is attending and ready to k no objection to allowing ■that he was a anTXuended court as such,
    An alternative mandamus had been issued, and- served upon the defendants, commanding them to audit and allow the account of Holley, for his services as a constable in ai- - ' . ’. tending the Court oí Oyer and- Terminer, and the Court of Common Pleas and General Sessions of the county of Columbia; he having been duly summoned to attend, by the’ Sheriff, and having attended accordingly, pursuant to the act 0f the 5th March, 1819, (sess, 42, ch. 27.)
    
    The/iretUrn stated that Holley was an. acting deputy of Sheriff during all the time for which he claimed pay as constable; that he attended as á deputy, not as constable ; did not carry a staff, or perform any of the duties Perta™n§to the office of a constable. Upon this grotiild, they denied him fees as coiistable.
    
      C. Éüshnell moved for a peremptory mandamus»
    
      T. Bay, Contra.
   Curia.

It- is enóugh that he wag Summoned, and at tending ieady to perform his duty aS constable, if called dñ. The statute is peremptory that hé shall have one dollar and 25 éénís k dáy for travel and attendance.

Rule for peiemptoiy tiiandafiius.

Note. A similar rule was made, on similar groutids, in the cause of The People, ex rel. Waterman, agaitis

The same defendants.