The Andrew County Republican. [volume] (Savannah, Mo.) 1871-1876, 1872-03-13
Supreme Court.

Ephraim Fisher appellant.
Strongs and Hendenberg for respondent.
Herein and Rea for appellaft.-appeal
dismissed.
j. N. Reddick Plaintiff in error
/ a-"as Fa f.H- as.
VIM. Gresham Deft, in error.
Kelley for Plaintiff in error, Strongs and
Hendenburg for Deft in error.-reversed
and remanded.
A. F. Owens
as.
Andrew County u.s. ssa~s
Certirari to Andrew County Court.
Kelley for Plaintiff, Higgins, Strong, and
Hendenberg and Chandler for Def't. re-
cer&ed.
Waterman appellant,
as.
johnson ct al-Respondents,
Strongs and Hendenberg for appellant,
Herein and Rea for respondents, reversed
and remanded.
sCharleton, respondent,
as.
David Brown, appellant,
Kelley for respondent, Higgins, Strong,
and H~endenberg, and Chandler for appel
lant.-afirmad.
+. E. McLain, respondent,
--.4--~ rs.
JAS III. Martin, appellant,
Kelly for respondent, Heren and Rea
| for appellant, affirmed.
The case Of Owen rs. Andrew County
is one in which the tax payers ofthe coun
ty are directly interested as it involves them
in the payment of a heavy bill of costs, the
cause having been twice before the Supreme
Court. People may be a little interested to
know something Of the nature of the case.
While Owen was Sheriff and collector of
Andrew county, the law authorised him to
charge ten per cent on delinquent taxes as
costs and fee" and as it at that time did
not designate any other purpose to which
the penalty of 10 per cent should be ap-
piled, he collected it or not as he felt dis
posed, emitting to collect a very large por-
ton of it. He made his settlements regularly
with the county court, the court taking no
notice whatever of the penalty, believing
as Owen did that it belonged to him. Bat
after Owen Went out of office and a new
Judge was elected the county court at
tempted to hold Owen accountable for the
whole amount of the penalty on all the de-
l.n,o $780,. ,-l..l tn o,l1o,t,l .l,,,,x
the years 1866 and 1867, whether he had
collected the penalty or not, and made up
an order to that effect, and then rendered
Judgment against him for Sl553.S2 to bear
80 per cent interest till paid. To this pro-
ceeding Owen protested and anne in at the
same term oftho court and asked for a hear
ing, but the court under bitter remon-
STRANGE of one of the judges, against grant
ing it, denied him all opportunity to be
heard. Owen tried unsuccessfully to have
the casc reviewed by appeal to the Circuit
court, but the county court objected to
this appeal and it was dismissed. HIS
counsel then applied directly to the Su-
preme court for a writ Of ccrtiorari, which
was granted and the case removed to that
court, where it was decided at the term
just closed.
The Supreme court decides, first, that
after Owen term Of Office had expired the
county court had no control over him and
its proceedings We're utterly unwaranied
by law: secondly. that tho ten per cent
which the county court attempted to hold
him accountable for, was what the law
termed it costs aud fees and did not be-
long to the county, and thirdly, that the
county court onght in common justice to
havegiven Owen a hearing, and finally the
Supreme court reverses The whole proceed
ings and Judgment of the county courtroom
first TO last. and sets them aside. Thus an
unjust and malicious attempt to injure an
honest and faithful public officer, and de-
stroy his private character to crafty per-
soGal and political spleen has, as all such
iniquitous proceedings should, come to
naught.
But what say you tax payers to the ref
orlnation promised, and how do you like
this soptuf inanciering by the old 'fnan-
cier". The costs and expenses to the
county which you are required to foot up
are probably five hundred dollars, and in
justice to Owen, his OUTLAWS, which are
about $780, 90 should be refunded to him.
This has all occurred for the purpose of
makinga false show of vigilance on the
part of some men to guard the interests of
the people.
But the best laid schemes of mice and
men gang aft a glea.