Vandalia Whig and Illinois intelligencer. [volume] (Vandalia, Ill.) 1832-183?, 1834-03-20

.bility is the same. The constitution in
Iced expressly names them commissioners.
Ind through all the legislative acts, when
spoken OF, the term county commissioners
IS used, as frequently, as 'county commits
siolers' court" They are known by law
as public corporation, created for the pur.l
pose OF experimenting the business of the
comfy, In relation to its fiscal aud local
co0cerns, and although he acf of the leg
lsature directs that suits shall be carried
OF against the county, by lis particular
name, still the commissioners are its pub
lie, acknowledged, lawful agents, to maui
age all its interests. The objection then.
that the plrintitt has joined different par.
ties or causes OF action in right Of different
piriies in the declaration, is not made ont
The second ground, the want of speciul
ayerments is not we'll taken. The conniy
commissioners were, by law, at the time Of
the making OF the alleged contract, speci-
ally charged with the case. and superInten-
dence OF all Paupers in their county and
when they had adjudged that such person
was emitted to relief, aud employed an ~
dlviddal to afford the aid required, as be-
tween the courtyard such person soemploy-
d,Itwas conclusive and final on the county.
The person employed was rot, by any
means. bound to enquire INTO the correct
ness OF their DISCRIMINATION; 1t was sulii
cient, that they had authority to afford the
relief, and when they had determined that
it was proper, The county was bound BY
their contract, they having the authority
to make it. This is not the case of an ar.
ton on an implied request, where the ser,
wees had been rendered to one, hayinu
gained legal settlement; and who. in
consequence of such settlement would he
entitled to relief, and with the expense of
which the county would be chargeable. In
such case 1t will not be doubted that To
entlle party to recover, il would be ne
cessary, to aver, and prove, all the facts
necessary to shew that, the party to whom
reiief was extended, was pauper, who
the county was legally bound 10 suopor,
and take care of.
On the three last points, it may be pro-
per to notice that, as they are in some nea-
sure connected, they may with proprjety
be considered together. Before en'erino
on the question of the propriety of the adj
mission of the paroJ evidence, the grounds
arising on the demurrer may be Diseased
OF. The plaintiff in error contends thar
Tue county commissioners court had eyolt.
sive original jurisdiction to determine what
sum was due, and should be paid 10 the da-
iendant, tor the services rendered. and tina,
therefore, Me circuit court had no puwer
10 inquire INTO the cause ofaction. 70 Oh
ware this objection we need Only to recur
10 the constitution of the suite. which ia
creating the office OF county commissioner
oeclares that the STERN Of serpicc. po,oer
ana duties shall be regulated and defined
oy 'ap," and that the object of lis creation
IS exclusively for The purpose of transact
ing county business. Here then. no naw-
er IS gwen to adjudicate on contracts, and
more particularly SO, when The county us
Ell was one of the contracting parties: but
ii a doubt could remain that no such Grant
was ever given by the constitution. il Isl
removed by recurrence to the powers
and duties as prescribed by legislative en-
actment, and shows, at once, that sense in
winch the legislative power understood
mat part OF the constution, which created
The office. By the 9th section of the act
the court of county commits,
'ioners, passed 22d March, 1919, it is oro-
'ided, "That there shall be nothing con
AIMED or construed in this act, to give The
sand court any original or appellate iuris.
llctlan IN civil or criminal suits ar ar
ions, wherein the state is party, or anv
bodies polite or corporate are
parties" This provision at once excludes
all idea Of jurisdiction 10 the case before
he court. The demurrer was then cor
'ecty decided.
In the consideration which might be oiv-
IN to the admission Of the parot testimony.
II the supposItIon that ii conflicts with set
led rules of evidence in regard to records.
'r the written evidence OF courts OF record
will be perceived that long, and per.
laps undressing examination of powers
ND duties of the county commissioned
ourt. as they have been practically under
TODD, might be made; but how far ,hat
night tend to elucidate the accuracy of the
ecision IS not perceived, nor indeed would
oe Pron'ap'e or necessary TO investigate
ne question, whether this court is in The
egal sense of the law, ii courl of record .
Whether ii is marked by those constituent
satures which properly characterize n
curt OF record under the well known term
i actor. reas, .jnder. 1t IS by no means
ssentlai to correct determination of The
uestlon arising on the admission of the
Or Of the instructions of the court.
lat it should've determined whether the
ounty commissioners court was or was I
OF court of record, Ora public corporation. ,
nth specified and defined powers; because [