The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1868-02-12
TIE STATE VS.. VICTOR BISCH.
The In iictments ouashed.
Opinions of Judge Gregory.

S~S~~ A~J - kf~~ASNA ~ -
of the Circuit Court, Judge Gregory,
Of the Supreme Court, presiding. was
convened for the purpose Of trying
theacase of the State VS. Victor Bisch,
Auditor Of Vanderburgh County, on
three separate indictments. The sub
stance. of the first charge was that
Bisch had, received, an allowance of
50, 800 for services rendered on and
about the Board Of Equalization at
Indianapolis some two years ago.
The second Indictment charged
that he had received an allowance of
5000. for services rendered ins revising
the assessments of. real estate. II
The third charge was similar to the
second, except that the amount said
to have been received was 50, 0O0
$ The case came up on a motion to
quash the indictments, and was ar
gued on the part of the defendant by
Judge Iglehart and Colonel Charles
Derby, and on the part of the State
by Judge Robinson and Captain Will
lard. .stt14
Judge Gregory took the case under
advisement, and yesterday morning
delivered the following written opin-
ions, which We lay before the readers
of the JOURNAL 2iaweaaa ear
oPINroNs OF JUDGE. GREGORY.
The State Us. Bisch 81. t.e -
The indictment charges that on,
&c., at, &C., Victor Biseh being the
Auditor of this county, acting as
such, by color Of office, did unlawfully
demand, take and receive Of and from
the County Treasurer, 6y means of an
order of the Board of County Com
nstssioners, as and for acompensation
for pretended services. claimed to
have been Heretofore rendered by
him as such Auditor In the matter
the State Board of Equalization; also,
reliefAto soldiers'A families-for SER
vices rendered, Expenses incurred,
and time"-the sum of 81, 800, all of
which allowance was not autlor+
lied bylaw but on the contrary, it
was the duty of Bisch as such Auditor
to have performed such services as
,saehFAnditor, upon AheG request of
the Board of Commissioners, for a
reasonable compensation = to w.t. the
sam of $500, the said sum of g, 800,
being 81 1909 more than was due him.
The detfpaaqt moves to4quash the
indictment.
The act defining misdemeanors
andprescribing ppnis hfnent thefefor,'
provides that If any officer of the
State, BY color IT has IS oBScel shall. de
mand or receive anything Of value,
whiehsmay' not be due 10 hing
such person shall be fined
not to exceed one thousand dollars.
to-wfiel1 may be added imprisonment
not exceeding six months, (2G.&H.,
p. 474. sect 68D9 The objection made
to the Indictment is, that it shows on
its face, that, the money received by
the defendant was not obtained by
him By color of his office. s 4aea
In Dunlap rs. Curtis, 10 Massachu-
sets, 30, inan action to recover the
penalty given by statute inlthat State
against officers guilty of demanding
and receiving greater pay than au-
thorized by law, the Court say: The
extortion to be punishedby penalty
against an officer who receives more
than lawful fees By color Of his office,
sugposesea right to demand fees of the
person who pays, them. The excess
demanded and taken is then extor-
sive, and the officer is to be punished
by the penalty given by the Statute,
to be recovered by any personwho
will sue for the same, or by indict-
ment. But fees demanded of per-
son not liza bic, origoluntarily paid by a
person not liable, although improperly
and unjustly taken and accepted by
the officer, and although in certain
cases he may be punished for the
cheat on fraud, yet this IS not extor-
ton, as the fees, if excessive, are not
obtained byJcolor Of office"
Mr.. Bishop says the offence con-
sists in corruptly demanding or re-
ceiying by the person in office a fee
for services which should be gratuit-
uously performed or of "a larger fee,