, 1864-01-21
Law Intelligence.
Can = Jury During \ Capital Trial
be Fed at the Expense Of
the County.
RECORD OF CASES IN TIE DIFF
FEREHT COURTS.

It appears astonishing when we Consider tho
immense amount Of legal bus;ness done and the
infinite number Of pointH OF Inv that are raised
and argned every dsy, throughout the countries
where the common law prevails, how many ques-
tons affecting the duties and obligations Of par
ties, n the most common and ordinary rel.t:ors
Of liie, suA remain undecided. In the practice Of
our city courts, not week elapscs, without rails
ing some question, with respect TO which the au-
thorities arc utterly deficient Or else go conflict
Ing and satisfactory, that the point for all prac
tical pu1p poses must be regarded az undecided !,
Such question was one argued before Jadge
Gary, Of the Superior Court, yesterday, OH demut-
Ter to declaration fled In caae involving trl.
fling amount oI money, hut an important princs-
pie. The Gaze was that Of William Fletcher
against the County Of Cook. Tho demand was
bssed upon the fact thai during the April term ot
tue Superior Court In 1861, jury was empannellcd
In the Gaze Of the People Garrity and Gibbons,
on IN Indictment for murder, and that the jury WIS
not allowed to separate for three days, being tho
time Of continuance Of the action; that the Sheriff.
On the order Of the Court furnished suitable food
and lodging for the jurors which the plaintiff fur
nished In his capacity Of hotel keeper. The decla
he turnished the iurJ aud balliifs With such food
ard lodgings Us they required to the value Of eeY-
eH&J 0OlEn1H. ADQ LQEtesUtG HG D{luER Hutt, &C,
Detendan's demurred generally, and Ia argument
on the demurrer yesterday, took the position that
the comfy is under legal Obligation to furnish
Th heard and Pit th ssne
whole compensation, leaving them to acfiay their
0wn expenses. Counsel contended that tfesa vas
asdR2 RF9RdhS e hs bap e 81 .es sa y a 5
engaged in tho tri11 oi a cause at the expense
et the county, than there would bs Ia
iq;Tniahtng n;n them to the Judge Or clerk Or other
q tue statute, no CUSTOM recognized as valid By
the common law. to Justify either expenditure and
IN the absenca Of legal authorization, It would BE-
inst ns proper in one case in the other It was
pot pretended that the Jurors would be entitled to
board and lodging, at the county's expense. under
I any other slrcnmsta9ees than those described in
counsel lor paintG claim that such chargs :oald I'D
be }ustlgg;sd; feI where was the foundation for
clause be found TO declare That in one case the jl-
ror ehonld iced himself, and II the other TINT the
county shonld feed him, What was there IL tie
! at their own expense any more whea they wcre
kept together than when they were allowed to be
| separated. Both law and common sense prescribed
| dollar and diff cents day, and II he could not
feed himself ont Of that, then he might etarve.
Several decisions were read, all Of them very far
South, which seemedf to support the positions oi
Counsel ior the plaintiff contended that although
the case was not expressly provided for by the
established tho propricty Of the charge. The Sd.
pIeMe Courts Of this and other States had repeat
cdfY decided that county officers should be remu-
charge Of thefr official duties, which were 1ot spe.
cial'y provided for By statute. They 1lad decided
that county clerks sl'onl1 be rcnnneratcd for m,a
s sr a4sss a Dia IL
for moneys expanded il heating aud lighting their
Offices for none Of which expenses had tho statute
! maac any special provision. This wa5 done on
| the ground that the money Was extended for the
Interests Of the county, and therefore Justice re-
! qulted that tie county ahoula bear the burden.
In thls case the lay prohibited the iuEs 1ton
oittoee legal processes In the proper conduct of
| which every man was interested who had life or
property to be protected; No one would deny that
aiufy, during tr,als of this nature, was IN emf
| gently proper one, and every one conld sec that
while they were Kept together tho expense mad
fe]ves with food and logging must necesaariiy be
cd to separate. This additional expense, CON
1ntelests of the county 1t won]d be The height oi
unairress TO throw upon the individual jurors. It
should be sustained by the county. Only ia this
| decisions which had been read, and the doctrine
| Of which must he conceded to he good law.
Tie CoDrt a'lez reua5kiuC upon tho rcfy con-
eidcEa11 Importance OF the question, and obsery-
/ ard c1aims against the county whoae decision and
ya'adity would depend upon the rule of law held tu
applicable to tails Gaze, reserved its opinion I'LL
I Reed for plaintn; King and Scott for defence.
| SC1En1oE cou1T-BS1Ts CHG Justice John II,
'; iits sill id = Eberhart ct al Dismissed at com
1tsi. Western u. & F. Ina. Co. vs. Deasmo.e ct
! n. Time for pensmose to answer extended fifteen
3se. Vincent ct al "a. Vincent ct ii. Dismissed
1:G0. Timzcd Is. Vincent ct al. Same proceed.
114e: Po'la1son vs, Mitchell. Masters fepoz,
| confirmed.
J BEFORE Hon. Fan q. Higgins, Judge. Common
81. Appeal Of Prudence Hall ct al. Stricken
Its. Himrod .vs. eoy1e. Judgment for plnin.
se6; Arlington ct al vs. Beach ct al. Dismissed
| 10. Kainatz vs. Keller, Judgment for defen'
| dant.
6'a Ezns:ys. Clayton. Judgement for plalntlH
G4s. MeEwc1 ct Al vs. Williams ct a. Judg
7eoss, Hnpgood W. Chapel ct al. New tria
gyo1e Rsn. Jo.. z. Gary, yudQe Connon zdte
1850. Gage rs Ln1n Ct al; Demurrer to dec!ara
By Moudoy morning.
c1nculT cornr-Befors Hon. E. 5. Tinlams
i. Eaeon ct al. -. Sweet ct nj. Trial re
suu,cd.
2ss. ui1dcJrard re. LII. Referred to arbitra
tors hy agreement.
CAdnce1r53t Wslte. 70. Siamposki ct al
Decree against all defendants except D. Eaton, aui
/ continued as to him.
=, AMUSEnIENTS.
McV1cKER'e THEATRE. This evening Mse
! Charlotte Thompson, who has already established
herself ss Chicago favontc, will appear In Made
ilnc, in the bcauhinl french drama Of the Belle 0
] Fantou1g. Her pessouatIon Of this character i