The Cambria freeman. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1867-1938, 1874-10-16

IHE COUNTY VS.. THE CoMMIssIoNErs
Judge Deans Charge. is the
noie charge of his Honor, Judge Dean, in
ui .n9 tesI case OF Cambria county against f.
~ rrlei, Esq, one of the Commissioners
County Of Cambria In Common Pleas of Cam
Francis o'Friel No. g., Sga.S sept. erm, 1874
Gentlemen Of tie jury:
The issue you are sworn to try
Is framed on appeal by the defendant
from settlement of his accounts as County
Commissioner by tho County Auditors He
pelng public officer the Act of A Assembly
makes 1t the duty of the Auditors to Sc title
the defendants charges for services and mon
ey laid out for the use Of the county. Of
these charges the Auditors rejected a num-
per OF items, amounting in the aggregate to
the sum OF S62. 80, and, SO rejected, this
amount stood balance due from the Of
hcer to the county
If the Auditors had allowed these charges
TIE county could have appealed and, re-
Jectlng them, the defendant has his aCpcsi
10 TINS Court. He now asks for re-exam-
lnation of his accounts, and alleges that the
items making up the rejected S62 so should
nave been allowed, and that in not doing 30
me Auditors erred. The defendant alleges
that he had no notice of the hearing by the
Auditors, and was not, therefore present
Ihat, III passing upon his accounts without
his presence, they heard hut one side and
although 1t was his legal right to notice OF
time and place of hearing, he does not here
urge this AZ a reason for setting aside the
settlement, but he does insist that he, here
and now, be heard in favor of the legality
and honesty of the charges in his account
This strips tho case of all hindrances to n
nearing on its merits, and it il now our duty
and yours to pass upon the issue between
the parties
Did the Auditors err when they rejected
or refused TO allow Mr.. O'Friel the S62. so?
This is determined, first, by the answer we
give as to the law, and, second, by the an
swer give to the fact.
In 1872 an Act was passed by the Legisls-
ture declaring that instead of the per diem
compensation heretofore allowed the Coun-
ty Commissioners thereafter they should be
paid al annual salary Of S400.
without going into careful analysis of
TINS Act at this time, or giving az length the
reasons for our opinion, we have DO hesita-
tion whatever in deciding, that under it,
the County Commissioners of this county are
prohibited from receiving one cent beyond
the 800 for any services, either intellectual
or physical, rendered by them to the county
in carrying out or performing duties impos-
ed upon them by law. AS has been urged
by the counsel for the appellant the services
performed by Mr.. O'Friel were probably
done cheaper Than they could have been
done by:a third person, but that cannot a tier
tho construction of the statute. BY law it
was the duty OF the Commissioners TO dis
tribute the assessment books and rcgistra-
tion lists. They could mail these or express
them, and charge for the postage or carriage
or they could employ private individual
20 deliver them and pay him reasonable
compensation therefor, but If each Columis-
siouer undertook to deliver n portion Of
them in his ow neighborhood however pro-
per this may have been, ne cannot charge
for tho service III excess of the S4G0. All
the time expended 10y him and all the labor,
mental and manual, In performing a duty
which the law directed the Commi ssioners
to perform, ia paid for by the salary. We
do not undertake to decide Just what duties
must bo performed personally by the Com
mssioners for the salary, but we do decide
that when performed this is net one which
will eptitle them to Z ira compensation. 1t
will probably cost the county moro to pay
another for this work, but this is not a ques-
tion for us when we are called upon to give
effect to the plain import OF an Act Of As
sembly
This opinion OF ours, then, com p.ls you to
sustain the decision of the 4 Auditors as to
each item charged by Mr.. O'Friel for per-
sonal services out side the Office in deliver
I ing there assessment books and registration
lists. 1t il agreed hero by counsel for boz Ii
parties hat, the evIdepcs-the teSti-
mony of Mr.. O Friel and the vouchers Ice
fore you--that Of this $50 50 the sum of :S3l go
was money laid out by Mr.. O'Frel to the
use of the county, being necessary expsuses
in distributing thsss books aud lists This,
il is not questioned, should bo allowed hire
Deducting this from the Ss62 go, leaves rhe
amount charged by him for extra services
s3I 90, for which amount tie county is en-
titled to o verdict, and thsre being then no
disputed fact, you will find.