The Evansville journal., 1868-03-16


the small items is one for services
as County Agent, $50 co." What he
meant by this neither the Commis-
sioners, the Circuit Court, attorneys
or any other mortal has yet failed to
discover. As illustrative Of his in
ventive genius in manufacturing
p. items, tits amusing to notice charges
for comparing copy with printer to
obtain proof-sheet, and causing to
be printed Assessors statements,
&C., different charges of $25 90. ST 80,
&c. We judge this is the first in
stance on record where a County Off
cial eyer prosecuted a suit against the
Commissioners for holding copy" or
reading proof" for the printers. The
ground for extra charges in the Aud
itor's Office must have been drained
pretty dry to compel a resort to such
" items as these. There are charges,
among others, for ten days services
+" for selecting jurors $25 90.
We give the above as a sample of
the character of the claim which the
Commissioners rejected, and which
was prosecuted with so much energy.
The payment of not one single item
was authorized by law, and for receiv-
ing the same, Mr.. WALKER would
have been guilty of extortion. And
it was for alleged similar offenses that.
he was instrumental in procuring an
Indictment against Mr. BIsCH.
LENGTH AND RESULT OF THE SUIT.
This account, first presented in
the Commissioners Court at the Sep
tember Term, 1861, and appealed to
the Circuit Court as stated above,
Mr. WALKER prosecuted with untiring
persistence for four years. The best
legal talent was employed, and the
case argued with ability before Judge
PARRETT, who finally rendered his
decision IN the case at the May
Term, 1865, less than three years ago.
Ia his written opinion, now on file in
the Clerk office, Judge PARRETr
decides that Mr.. WALKER is not en-
titled to recover on one solitary item;
that all are unauthorized by statute,
and that he had no just claim what
ever against the County. After an
able and exhaustive review Of the
statutes and cases cited, the Judge
closes his decision as follows:
d" The conclusion arrived at is that the
plaintiff in his Official ca pacity, is bound
to discharge all his official duties for the
compensation fixed and speclally allowed
to him by the laws regulating his fees
His bill OF particulars is entitled bill for
extra services as County AUDITOR and in
IL he expressly AYERS that the services for
which he claims were rendered by him in
his OfticiaFcapacity. If, then, the services /
were eXUra-that is, services for which no
is provfded-and were rem
dered by him in his official capacity he
cdp"Ot recover. Upon examination no item
of his account seems to be so charged as
to take IL out of this rule. The demurrer
will, therefore, be sustained"
So, after four years of persistent
the suit is lost, and Mr..
WALKER fails to receive an allowance
of 81 1888 80, claimed from the Com
missioners without the warrant of
law. And yet, Notwithstanding Judge
PARRETT's decision, that he was not
entitled under the statute to a single
cent, he draws from the County Treas
ury the sum of SO 90, erroneously
allowed him by the Commissioners
under a miscOnstruction of the Stat /
ute.
he JUDGES HIS OWN CASE.
Now, if we accept Mr.. Walkers /
view of Mr.. BIsCH's conduct and his
exposition OF the law as correct, why |
was he (WALkER) not guilty of a
felony, and liable to an indictment by 4
the Grand Jury, for receiving the
allowance of $75 90 after he /
failed to obtain the $1,838 80? /
BE insisted that Auditor BIsCH
ought to be prosecuted for ex-
-ortiOn, for receiving allowances
not authorized by law. He attempt
ed, first by importunate solicitation and
-hen by persistent litigation, to OBJ
ain from the County Treasury 81,
338 80 not authorized by law, and
falling in that, takes the lesser sum
which Judge PARBETT decides he
could not lawfully.take. Judged by
why was he not a criminal,
worthy the attention of the Grand
Jury, and the sentence of the Court?
THE APPLICATION.
WIIIIAM 81 WAIKER is . canIi