The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1894-01-09

on warrant, were given hearing and
were locked up for four days for
drunkenness, the complainants not
caring to have them held for the
grand jury, which might easily have
been done, as in nearly every case of that
kind more serious charges might have
been preferred. The first witness knew
of any change in the law respecting fees
was when the Board of Freeholders APP
pointed committee to look up the mat
ter.
Mr.. Clevenger said that some OF the
persons he committed to prison and for
which he charged, had paid their fines
and costs to the Sheriff and he supposed
it had been turned into the county treas
ury.
This led to some discussion. Joseph
H. Gaskill, counsel for Mr.. Clevenger,
claimed that his client had right to re-
bate IN all such instances, the other side
asserting that, even if these fines had
been paid in, it did not justify the officer
In collecting excessive fees.
The witness then went on to tell who
of the persons named in the commit
ments were tramps. This was with the
object of showing who were tramps, the
law making a distinction against that
class of citizens by stating that they could
not be committed as DRINKS. Mr. Gas
kill interposed an objection on the
ground that the law was unconstitutional,
the Legislature having no right to say
who might and who might not get drunk.
Judge Miller declined to give an opinion
on the constitutionality of the act
Witness said he knew that a public
meeting of citizens was held to protest
against the action of officers in the matter
of committing tramps. and he knew that
| it was proposed to have the law. changed,
but he never looked into the newspapers
to discover the law, nor did he inquire of
the Assemblyman from this district, nor
of the Secretary of State respecting the
law.
I Joseph Powell, County Collector, said
that he never requested the Justice to in
cIude the constables' fees in his bills, al
though he had said it would be an accom-
mediation to him.
Samuel A. Atkinson, County Auditor,
said that he asked the justices to embody
in their bills the fees of constables,
but he never asked the justices to
collect the money. Mr. Clevenger had
often said that the constables were fire.
quently indebted to him, and it suited
him Just as well to collect their bills
The plaintiff rested, and Mr.. Gaskill
moved to nonsuit on the ground, LIST. that
the bills collected by this justice were
paid by the County Collector, after being
duly authorized by the Auditor, an Off
Ger elected for the express purpose OF
acting as check upon illegal payments
I'd, because if the Auditor has audited
and the Collector has made payments not
justified, the remedy of the county is
against those officers Sd, that these ex-
cessive fees were not collected or received
knowingly.
Judge Miller said that he proposed to
instruct the jury to make some special
findings in this case, and would reserve
his decision on the law respecting the
motion to nonsuit.
The court, therefore, instructed the
jury to find that the defendant received
the sum of $2S4.75 in excess of legal fees
OF this sum the constables received Sl95.
Court then took recess, and in the af
ternoon the lawyers argued the case.
Mr.. Chambers said he should claim
that decisions showed conclusively that
the duties of the Collector and Auditor
are fixed by statute, and that if those
officers went outside of their jurisdiction
the county could not be made to suffer.
Mr.. Gaskill argued that the manner in
tees collecting for the constables-was
for the convenience of the Collector and
Auditor, and the justices were merely
their agents in carrying the money to the
constables, and could not be made to re
fund the sums collected for those officers
The Collector and Auditor we'll knew
that they were giving to the justices thu
fees for the constables. Then there was
principle of justice involved The con
stables are continually doing a service fo
the county, and, If they are insolvent, thu
Collector has a chance to retain from
money due them, the excessive fees. The
bills were duly audited by sworn officer
OF the county. whose duty it was to know
, of every law and to protect the count,
treasury from excessive inroads w hal
ever money MIR. Clevenger received, h,
got without illegal intent, and in ignor
ance of the law. If the county can re
cover at all it must be from the Collector
who, in turn, must look to the person VIII
a has been excessively paid.
Mr. Sooy said the fees in this case wer
taken under the law Of 1889. In March
1892, the law was amended, changing tn
fees, and this suit was to recover money
, paid in excess of this law. He did no
. think that, because the Auditor ha
= marked these bills correct, the count
must be bound to the extent of being IN
. able to recover fees that officers had n
- authority to take from the treasury. Tn
: county of Burlington might have ground
for bringing action against the Colecto
: and Auditor; it certainly could not pre-
clude it from bringing against tn
person who received the money. TIL
= point that the justice received the fees /
: ignorance of the law, Mr.. Sooy though
= was foolish man might make out bill
: for illegal fees, but he did not think an
!. man, especially public officer, coul
: come into court and plead ignorance {
the law. He thought 1T absurd for La
officer to say, after the law on the poin
: was shown him 81 did not know it wa
law, hence i must not pay back what
d have received illegally" The Justices III
d doubtedly received the moneys for then
selves and for the constables, hence the