Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1885-04-17

JuuS &c stone mas lieu paper III tue VIZ"
office purporting to be the decision of the Court
in the case of the Registration officers, in Which
they claimed additional compensation from Tho
County Commissioners for services rendered, q
report of which ha, previously appeared in th,
TINES. The case WAS argued at the November
term, when it was shown that Mr.. Mudd, the
plaintiff, had been actually employed for 81
days in performing certain services, all oil
which were specifically required to be perform
Ell by the Act Of Assembly under penalty OF
$500, while the Commissioners had only allow
ed compensation for Is days service. Il was
also shown that by the decision OF the Court oil
Appeals, which was relied on as defense,
Bryan, the only couaty officer that appealed,
had been allowed for every day that he claimed
and the full amount he claimed, and that he
had received compensation for services idcnti-
cal to all intents and purposes with those for
which compensation is now refused by the
uadsr aiviSsnent, for the express purpose Ms
it stated of examining the record in the Bryan
case to ascertain definitely whether or not be
had received pay for all the services he aimed or
whether any item of service be claimed compen
satien for had been rejscted a. merely incidea-
tai In the opinion aow filed the court IN ,kes
no meation at all of Bryan's claim or whether
any part of ii was rejected. The following i,
the opinion of the court
Henry l. Mudd vs.. ! Appeal Docket
County Commissi. aers of
Charles County. Nov term 1894
The question in thi. case, is the amount that
a Register of voters is entitled By lar to receive
for the performance of his duties | have given
it a careful examination and have come 10 the
conclusion that the jud gmen, would be reversed
as thiRk the appellate court has settled the
question.
II appears that the Commissioned. allowed
the Registers a perdiem for FIVE days for the
September and two days for the October sitting
and ia addition thereto psrdism for three
DAYS after both the September and October sit
tiugs for posting hand-bills, making thirteen
d Tvs which they allowed him a perdism.
The Register claiins, however, for oth.r incl
dental services. Ia the case OF Ryningers and
Bryan vs.. Ksa,ing Goth Maryland. the court
below only allowed the Register perdism for
the days of his dctuIi sitting, The Register ap
by the provision of the list Section of the
Act, each off :er of registration is required
within FIVE days after each OF the several sit
tings in the year eighteen hundred and eighty
two, TO make and publish, in hand bill form, II
complete list of all persons registered al said
several sittings While We do not think t.at
the appellants entitled to pensa,ioa for
other serrices tchch merely incidental 10 heIr
general duties, We are of opinion that this parti-
cular duty is so intimately connected Nth that
of registering the names vi the sirtings that the
DAYS 80 occupied were days of sppoin ted service
for which perden of four days is allowable
under the true construction of the statute
This language is suffice uy explicit. The
Court decided that the Registers were entitled
10 per m for the days OF actual sitting AMI
for the DAYS occupied in making and publish
lug in hand bill form the lists (such DAYS not
TO exceed three after each sitting) but for no
other iscid ptIi service
The County Commissioners having allowed
for these days and an allowance TOR stationary,
the appellee is not entitled TO any additional
and the ju d yment will be reversed
with costs +. STONE, {. j.
1t is little remarkable that though there
were three judges sitting in tie case the opinion
is fled by The Chief Justice alone, and that be
makes no mention at sIl of the concurrence Of
his associates, but speaks of my" consdera-
tons and nay conclusions aoae II is
to be regretted that the opinion is not
more full aud debate, all that i, should take
no notice III all Of III. points raised in argu
msnt Ths counsel for the CJnmi sci pners, Mr.
Edelrn, admitted that th- registrars wsra emit
tied 10 compens .iion for one rejected i,.m-the
making OF the poll booss-hut The court in it,
brief opinion M likes n N Mi n Al all Of that
We have been at some pains to-x mine the &C
Counts Of the con N toner's OF neirly all td-
counties o. the State upon this N alter AMI lad
hat ia no county, except in this, sud the
here are R.publictn oo4rds of com n,sioae's,
has the arbitrary rals attempted to be establish
ID by this decision Of giviag all the registrars
, fixed aad much reduced conp.n, ,iioa, with
put regard 10 the amount of services rendered.
been adopted Ia tn. other countis. the reg
strars receive viryiag compensation, ranging
from Sl25 downward, according 10 the number
Of days actually employed as proven By their
own anadaviis, the evidence fixed by the act
itself, while under his decision they receive "a
arbitrary $50 There will be no further appeal
in this case, IS the law does not Psrmt a jus
tees case to be carried TO the Court OF Appeals
Il is understood, however, that the Registrars
will in due time commence another suit 10 tn.
circuit court, which will he carried to tn.
Court of Appeals for final adjuiic ,Ioa.