The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1890-02-15
MILLICAN AHEAD.
The Appellate Court Confirms the
Judgment for l,8ol.8o
GIVEN AGAINST THE COUNTY IN 'SS.
The Opinion I'm the Foster Case Seems to
Have Been Filed just In Time, as the
Judges Were Influenced by 1t.
GOLD BILL" Is HAPPY.

Yesterday morning Judges LOCey
and Upton, of the appellate bench,
filed an opinion in the Mlligan case
affirming the ruling of the lower
court, and giving VIM. L. Milligan,
ex-sheriff of La Sale county, judg-
ment for 81, S9l.S9 against the county
of La Sale, balance due on final set
Element. AS stated in the opinion,
Millgan got judgment for the above
amount in the circuit court IL Feb
ruarv, 1885, but the defendants took
an appeal. The result has been stated.
Following is the opinion in full:
The County of La Sale V. William
II. Milligan This is case where the
sheriff, who is appellee, sued the ap-.
pellant to recover balance claimed
to be due him for fees, as he claims,
and expenses of his Office, and the APP
pellant, in separate suit instituted
against him, seeks to recover for a
large amount of money claimed by 1t
to have been illegally paid out OF the
county treasury to him on account OF
fees and salary. The two cases were
consolidated by agreement, and a jury
waived and the cause tried by the
court, resulting in finding and judg-
ment against the appellant for the
sum of 81, 1891. S9. The record Is very
voluminous, and involves all the trans
actions and accounts of the sheriff'S
Office with the county for four years,
amounting in the aggregate to over
500, 900. The appellant claims that
the county has paid out on account or
the sheritf's office some $50, 900 or
1876 900 more than the collected earn
ings of the Office. On the other hand,
appellee claims that it has not, and
that there is a large balance due him,
and that the county having made set
tlement of the accounts with him,
from time to time, on a full, honest
settlement Of the facts with him, is
estOpped from going behind these set
Elements and collecting the money
back. There are some of the claims
of the county against the appellee
that we think are not legitimate eX-
penses of the sheriff's office. For in
stance, the dieting of the prisoners,
which by the statute is required TO be
done by the county and to be paid for
out of the county treasury, without
regard to whether the Sheriff's office
earns and collects a sufficient amount
of money to pay it, This is not to be
~
regarded as a part of the expenses of
the sheriff's office.
OF like nature are the expenses re-
quired by the statute and law to be
paid by the county, without reference
to the emOlumentS of the Office. The
expense of bailiffs are Of this class.
In Williams V. the County Of Rich
land, l6 Bradwell, p. 1893: If the sher-
iff paws such claims he has a right to
be reimbursed by the county, without
charging it to his expense account.
Of like nature IS the jailor's salary,
where the county voluntarily assumes
to pay it.
People V. Foster, lately decided,
and the opinion filed at Springfield by
the supreme court.
The same may be said for the ex-
penses of jail guard, guarding jail,
washing for prisoners, mendlng, for
prisoners, and the like. None of these
properly belong to the expense ac-
count of the sheriff. These, then,
were properly excluded and must be
regarded as proper paymenss, without
regard to the emOluments OF the Of
fee. Then these should be added to
the emoluments and collected ac-
counts of the sheriff. All such ser
vices done by the sheriff for the cOun-
ty, where the county is required by
statute to pay for such services, and
such as it may pay and allow, and
this would include such items as sum-
moning jurors, and costs in criminal
cases where there is an acqulttal, and
the like cases, per diem for attending
the different courts, expense of con
veying cOnvicts, and the like. Foster
case, supra. 1t appears to be held by
the supreme court in the Foster case
cited, that where the county board has
full knowledge of the items allowed,
without any fraud on the part OF the
sheriff. and allows them on account OF
a mistake of law, that such an allow
ance and payment cannot be recovered
back. Several items should be al
lowed on this basis and credited tC
amounts received for fees earned, such
as summoning witnesses before the
grand Jury in criminal cases, and The
like. Thus rejecting some items on
the principles above stated from the
sheriff's expense account, and credit
ing the receipts for fees earned, as
above indicated, and adding them tC
UIlc Dlo,D-D.fD dCJudlly COllCCUtu, w
have enough to balance the amount OF
money received by the sheriff from al
sources. Then there only remains the
question whether the sheriff has re
ceived the full amount Of his earn
ings by way of salary and Legitimate
expenses.
From the intricate mass of figures
, and accounts, and being governed by
the decision in the Foster case al
luded to, as to the rules Of law we are
unable so say that the finding Of The
court below was not justified by the
evidence. The principles announced
in Marion County V. Lear, lO8 H., p
! 343. that earnings in criminal cases
where allowed by law and required II
be paid, cannot be added to the earn
ings and receipts accruing from otheI
sources to make fund out Of which
the expenses of the sheriff's Office may
be lawfully paid, where the other re
. ceipts do not cover it, but may be 81
done as to the salary alone of tn,
sheriff proper, would work mOnstrou
p Injustice in this case. But we under
, stand that the Foster case, which /
later, announces an entirely differen
rule, and adopts more liberal con
CO i,n of pa N 4