Ottumwa weekly courier. (Ottumwa, Wapello County, Iowa) 1872-1899, 1878-11-06

ted to IL. The only claim he can have
would be derived from the appoint.
ment Of Judge Knapp for the term Of
Court, IN appointment which he held
for one day and which terminated BY
virtue Of the appointment itself on
the very day that he adjourned Court
Now I don't think that would make
him de facto that officer or give him
color Of title 90 that he would hold il
after that, especially when he founda
his claim upon Sec. 767, Of the Code,
- deputy, rather than upon his ap-
pointment by the Court. II he gets
his authority ct oil he must get II
there, and whether that confers such
authority aud power upon him I do
not think it necessary for this Court
to determine, but taking that section
in connection with this order / rec
ognize his acts ~ deputy sheriff va
Now, there 10 another question, and
that 10, whether the Board Of Super.
visors has power to appoint. t.iT
Judge Hendershott presented one
fact that was new to me, that was,
that the petition for the removal of
sheriff Stewart was not filed until A.
ter the adjournment Of Court. 0@
1.-THE order Of Judge Knapp sus-
pending Mr.. Stewart and appointing
W. D. McCue sheriff for that term OF
Court was made Sept. Is, during Aug.
term Of the District Court. The
Court adjourned on Sept. 90, and the
petition for the removal Of sheriff
Stewart from Office was filed by the
District Attorney, Sept. 2l.-REPoR-
TER. .ot
It all depends upon one proposition
all your argument ~ to when the &C
ton was commenced; whether it was
commenced ON the fling of the petit
ton by District Attorney FOR wheth-
er it was commenced when the order
Of suspension was made by Judge
Knapp
Ny own Judgment 10 that It was
commenced when the order of sus-
pension was made. / think Judge
Knapp commenced the action himself.
The fling Of the petition II pursuant
to his order and direction. And If
that 10 the commencement of the &C.
ton, then, OF course, the action 10, and
stand. continued, The action i in
suspend him has .hes1 made in
thai !, connection. That The party
may know what No = 20
meet, the Judge directs the District
Attorney to lie : petition setting out
the charges he does that by order and
direction Of the Court. He does that
after the adjournment Of Court, but
that does not invalidate the order of
Court. / don't think the action wa
commenced from the time Of fling the
petition, but from the time the ma.
chinery and power Of the court was
Get in motion, the order Of Judge
Knapp ON his own motion. It seems
strange to my mind how the action
would not be deemed commenced
when we find in that very action an
order Of Judge Knapp suspending
the officer from the discharge of the
Office. Now IL It wss commenced,
then 1t must be continued, because an
action not otherwise disposed Of by
the court must be deemed continued.
And II 1t 10 continued then Il falls
squarely under the provision Of Sec.
762 Of the Code, giving the Board Of
Supervisors the right and power to
appoint some person to temporarily
al the Office. The legal effect Of this
cannot be avoided. IA ISIS q I
Now the only question to be deter.
mined 10, whether this action being
under sections 1867 or 752, whether
the effect of suspension 10 the Same in
one case - In the other.
Sections 756 and 757 simply provide
one mode BY which this action may
be commenced. II simply gives pow
or to the District or Circuit Judge to
that action by ordering
the suspension and directing . petit.
ton for removal to be filed. And
that the other provides with reference
to which shall govern after that 10
done. The Same rules should govern
In constituting this - other actions and
70 any other petition.
There 10 no question - to what the
language in sec. 752 means. 1t means
he board Of supervisors shall appoint |
. temporary sheriff for tho time being
1t means they have the power
o do It and that they shall exercise |
hat power.
Thsfs may bes doubt - to what |