The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-03-03
criminal COURT COSTS.
b HEAVY PIECE OF MACHINERY THAT
MUST HAVE OIL.
The Average Sum of ESQ, 900 Expended
Annually--Green Deputy sheriffs Con-
tribute to the Grand Total by Indis-
erection In Summoning Jury Material.

d Criminal courts are great institutions,
and every, community should have one,
for ornament IL nothing else. They come
high, but it argues the wealth and liberal
ity OF any people who maintain one in true
dignity and pomp. Shelby has one, and
carries with it the distinction of being fore
most in the rank Of four which the proud
Z State OF Tennessee boasts.
On Tuesday morning last THE APrEAL
republished from the Nashville american
d comparative statement OF the receipts
Rnd expenditures from the four criminal
eourts in tho State. The figures were given
Nor three years. In every instance Shelby
headed the list for costs, and took position
lin rank for collections. Her cost for 1887
amounted TO S2i,4S014. This was only
Ne States proportion. The books in the
Ounty court chalrman's Office show an
avcragc addition Of $4,000 making a
rand total OF about $4,000 per annum, or
ua0re than all her other courts combined.
The costs for the last term OF three months
9>1umed up 81, 985.05, not including grand
Jury witness fees, which amounted 10
3 X~|ooO. tllt HlOulu llltTt WtTt
l,2S3 Witnesses before that body, at an
average OF 81 each. The S266.sS GO for
fhose general information witnesses, on
whose testimony no indictments were
{Qund. Where true bills are returned the
ILLNESSES and their fees follow the case to
nc State or county, as IL may terminate.
One feature Of this enormous cost comes
ON the summoning OF venires, though il
90 l,.l
. the door of the immediate court officials,
put presumably belongs 10 the sheriff II
comes about in this way: Just prior TO the
adjourning OF court, some afternoon, his
honor orders venire OF 100 or 200 men, TO
report at o'clock next morning, from
(which TO select q jury 10 try some import
ant murder case. Out of the venire per-
haps forty fail 10 respond TO their names
and the judge orders fine OF S25 entered
up against the delinquent. After sufficient
6me has elapsed for them 10 come and
oquare up and no one appears capias is
lssued, the deputy goes out and finally re-
furns with the Endorsement, "Not to be
bund in my county" Judgment is then
entered mp in the cases, running the total
cost TO about So on each delinquent. The
emount is lost, without any possibility Of
Return.
An experienced deputy sheriff explains
Ibis losing process as follows The deputy
1n charge OF he criminal court, finds
himself unable 10 summon In person the
senire ordered; he calls in outside dep
.uties; these scatter themselves around, lay
for the unwnry wayfarer, and, when he
appears, demand his name. "What for2,,'
+. asks the citizen. 81 am an officer, and
want you in the criminal court at o'clock
tomorrow morning." II the man is up 10
onuf he sizes up the officer, knows that
. be is not known, and gives in a fictitious
name, as Bill Smith, Sam Jones or Eras-
Rs vanhooley. He may In reality be one
q the best known and most successful
1Dsiness men Of the city, but fines against
- fictitious name given in have no ter
11fs for him. The censure attaches 10 the
oherif for having a staff composed for the
most part Of men whose circle OF acquaint-
I. Ances OF familiar faces may be squared on
. heir fingers. Ignorant deputies contrib
bte materially TO the drain on the public
RIB. At present this unnecessary cost
amounts 10 between 500 and 500 per
term. Can II not be remedied in some
Nay2