Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1875-03-07
WILLIAMSON WILL STAY.
Judge GiII's Decision in the JanitOr
Case Affirmed by the Supreme
EnmEa

Judge GfII's Decision in the JanitOr
Case Affirmed by the Supreme
Cont.
The courthouse janitor case was decided
by the Supreme Court yesterday, Chief
Justice Nicholson delivering the opinion:
John &. FerTiss vs.. j. Williamson.
At the January term, 1915, Of the County
Court Of Davidson county, it was ordered
that the court annually elect a janitOr for
the courthouse. 70 have q salary Of 5000 a
year, to be paid monthly. Under this o.
der, James Williamson was elected and en-
tered upon the discharge Of his duties. On
the lst Of February, 1870, he applied to
John c. FERRIS, County Judge, Of David
son county, for a warrant for his monthly
services as jaAitOr. FERRIS refused TO issue
a warrant, whcreup0n Williamson applied
by petition TO the Judge Of the Law Court
for an alternative mandamus, which being
granted, FerTiSs demuued to the petition,
upon the ground that there is no law au-
thorizing the action had by the Justices of
Davidson county, and if he should issue
the warrant he would be acting without
law or authority.
The Judge Of the Law Court oveTuled
the demurrer and ordered a peremp,oTy
mandamus to issue, from which Judge Fer
riss has appealed.
The courthouse is one of the county
buildings which the County Court isempOW-
cred to erect and keep in order and in repair
The Sheriff Of the county has charge Of the
courthouse, unless some other person is
specially appointed by the court for that
purpose.
The Judge of the County Court is the
accounting officer and general agent Of the
county, and has the care and custody Of all
county property, except such as is by law
placed in the custody Of other officers.
Code, III ct seq.
These provisions OF the law are explicit
and unamJigU0us. The sheriff of tie
county Is The officer specially designated TO
have charge Of the cOur-h0use-that is, to
have custody Of il aud to protect It from
tTesp2sser5 aud inruders, and to keep it
and the grounds attached thereto in order.
But the county court has the power to ap-
point anOthertO perform these duties. The
county judge or chairman has no custody
OF charge Of the courthouse, for the reason
that the care and custody Of cOurt-hOUses
are given to the sheriff.
In the exercise Of the power conferred
upon them, the Justices of the county de-
termined to relieve the Sheriff Of the duty
Of taking charge Of the courthouse Of
Davidson county, but to appoint the re-
lat0r to discharge the duties Of taking
charge Of it, aud hey designate as jauitor
OF the COURTEOUS a-that is, doUr6eeper or
porter Of the misunderstanding there
by 10 impose upon him the same duties
which the law imposes upon the Sheriff in
REGARD to the care, custody and protection
of the courthouse and grounds attached.
We eiink it clear that the County Court
had the authority Of law for making the
appointment, and that the County Judge
was bound, as financial agent Of the cOun-
Is, TO issue his warrant in pursuance Of the
order CT the County Court. There was,
therefore, no error in the judgment of the
Law Court, and the same is affirmed.