Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1876-01-31
INTERESTING LAW CASE,
The Liability Of shelby county In
tbe Matter of Costs and fees az the

a.eS...ey y. onehoy COunty IN
Sutt Of n Attorney General.
Quite IN interesting motion was ar
goed before Judge Heisksll, of the Cir
cult Court, some days since, in a case
styled Luke 4. Wright, Attorney Gene
raj. We. Shelby county. 1t appeared
that P. d. Boyle. former Clerk Of the
late Second Circuit Court, failed to
enroll cases on The docket, for which en-
rollment he had collected fees ranging
from two to four dollars in each case
from the parties to the suits. Boyle
went out Of office and both he and his
bondsmen were alleged to be insolvent.
The number OF cases so failed to be
enrolled and for which the fees we're col.
lected by Boyle amounted to 1866, and
on each Of these cases Attorney General
Wright made a motion over against
Shelby county claiming FIVE dellars fee
on each motion, the total amount being
the sun Of $780,; on which motions
also there are clerks fees claimed
amounting TO $4,000, and other fees
which make the grand total about $l7,-
600, for which Shelby county is sought
to be held liable Oh account Of the dere-
LECTION Of duty in not enrolling cases on
the part Of P. d. Boyle, the former
Clerk Of the late Second Circuit Court.
The code provides that it shall be the
duty Of the Attorney General to examine
the Offices Of the several clerks in his dis.
trict ct every term Of the court and see
whether enrolment Of cases have been
made, or it a fee has been charged for
enrollments not made; shall proceed
and move against the clerk for official
delinquency and shall receive a tax fee
of FIVE dollars in each case In 1874
Attorney General Wright made such an
examination Of said Boyle's office, but
his enrolling books showed that the re-
cords we're well up, as cases Of late date
appeared thereon. but it has been discov.
cred that nine-tenths of the cases we're
not enrolled, and that the late cases we're
merely enrolled as a blind to defeat a
casual examination or investigation. On
the hearing OF the 1866 motions above
referred TO before Judge Heiskell
Of the Circuit Court, the suit was ably
argued by counsel of the Attorney Cen
erai aud counsel Of the county of Shelby.
The entire amount of enrolment fees
collected by. Boyle and not accounted
for was about 1886, while the amount
claimed by the Attorney General and
others on said motions amount to ST.
600. Suit was brought first against said
Boyle aud his s%ureties to recover the
said amount, and judgment was obtained
against them, but the Sheriff returned the
execution Endorsed: mo property to be
found in my county out of which to sat.
isfy this execution" Then the.Attorney
General moved for a judgment over
against Shelby county for the amount of
said fees, which motion was resisted by
counsel for the county. Judge Heiskell
held that the county was not liable for
said amount of fees claimed in said cases
and the motion for judgment over against
the county WAS disallowed. Last Satur-
day a motion for a ~rehearing in the case
was argued before Judge Heiskell by At
torney General Wright and Captain
Folkes iorthe rehearing,and was resisted
in a very able name by County Attor-
ney Julius A. Taylor. The case was not
concluded, however, and was continued
over to next Saturday. Whether or not
Shelby county shall be compelled to pay
about $4,000 for the delinquencies OF
said Boyle in net enrolling cases is a
most important issue and one of no little
interest to all taxpayers. A number of
very abstruse and interesting law points
are involved in the ease as it AZ present
comes up before the court.