The Waco evening news. [volume] (Waco, Tex.) 1891-1894, 1893-09-19
Can McLennan County be
Made Liable
FOR THE ACTS OF IT'S OFFICERS:
Arguments Being Made on Demurrer by
Special Attorney Harrison.

plaintiff sues for $4,000 damages,
for IL jaries which he alleges were
inflicted on him while he was
prisoner at the county convict farm,
came up in the Fifty fourth Judicial
district court this morning, Special
Judge Prenderga-t presiding.
MIR. Richard II. Harrison, the
special attorney for the defendant,
entered general demurrer to the
allegations of plaintiff on the
ground that county cannot sue or
b. sutd unless authorized by the
statute which authorized county
to cue and be sued does not give
cause of action or c cate liability,
but simply furnishes remedy
where one exists, and if no cause of
action ex SITS either under the statute
or at common law none can be
maintained, Notwithstanding the
general right and liability of the
county TO sue and be sued.
Arg uing from these premises Mr..
Harrison said that county is a
political subdivision of the state,
euch is not liable for the
ajs Of its officers, agents
q 10y ees, unless expressly
I y statute.
The institution known as the
county convict farm is merely a
subsidiary branch Of the state peni.
tertiary system, created by the
general laws of the state for the
purpose of providing for penal ser.
vltude with reference to minor
offenses, and the officers of said in.
stitution are the officers of the state,
made SO by the general statute which
creates the officers and the relation
of the county to SAID institution,
and its authority over the same is
that of local agent Of the state
wherein the county derives no ben
eft, profit or revenue, but the reve.
nues OF the same, after paying its
current expenses, are applied under
the general laws to the payment Of
lhe costs of the state, aud to the
maintenance of the public higp-
ways.
The doctrine of respondent gu.
perIor has no application to coun.
ty and the fact that the county ap-
points the officers Of the convict
farm does not change the official
character as quasi Off ;ers Of the
state, so as to render them agents
and servants of the county, ror
does it render the county liable for
their tortuous acts.
A county being a political sub
division OF the state hose means
and sources of revenue are only
such as are provided by the laws
and constitution of the state and
whose property cannot be levied on
by execution or other writ, it fol.
lows that, as such, it can exercise
no power, perform no duty OF
function, create no debt, incur nc
liability and pay no claim, except
such as is authorized by law and
toe means provided by which tnt
same is discharged aud satisfied.
The statute authorIz ng the coun
ty to sue and be sued does not rem
der it liable for the tortuous and
negligent acts of its officers and
agents and claims arising ,herefrom
are not such as are contemplated il
articles 677, 962 and 1914 of the
r, vlsed statutes, providing for the
presentment, auditing aud payment
Of claims against the county.
Judge Leasing, who is associated
with Lawyer Dyer for the plaintiffs
interests, argued against thu
demurrer, conlendlng, briefly, taat
the county could be sued without
the authority of the state; that
the building of a county
convict farm was a private
enterprise, for private purposes and
benefit of which the county may
avail itself or not, as it sees fit.
Having avsiled itself of these bone.
fl q the county is liable for damages
on account of the abuse of
any convict, if the said