The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1894-03-06

PENDANT should be allowed the same fees for CON-
plant and warrant as in criminal cases.
/ The defendant submits four propositions
First. The action of the Auditor in auditing
and approving the bills precndes the Board OF
Freeholdsrs from recovering back the overcharges
Second. That If the fees sought 10 be recovered
were Illegal the plaintiff had right of action
against the County Collector who paid them.
Third. That the payments were received by the
defendant in ignorance of the law.
Fourth That the defendant was not answera-
BILE to the plaintiffs for moneys in excess OF the
| legal fees of the cOnstables which were handed
over the constables by the defendant at the re-
quest of the County Collector
As to the first proposition, that the action OF the
Auditor precuded the plaintiffs from recovering
back the over charges: The Auditor IS the agent
of the county only far as he acts within the ex-
press provisions of the law, and payments made
and sanctioned by him, not authorized by leglsla-
| tive enactment, are ultra wires, outside OF ms
| agency, and cannot bind the plaintiffs, the Board
of Chosen Freeholders of the county. (Demorest
v. Inhabitants of New Barbados, IL Vr. 604).
AS to the second proposition, that the plaintiffs
had a right of action against the County Collector
to recover the illegal payment made by himE
The Collector did not receive the money. he
was not benefited by the illegal payments The
defendant received the money for his own use,
excepting the amounts handed by him to the
cOnstables), and he should pay it back. Having
received it from an agent who not authorized
by law to pay it, the principal may recover it as
money lawfully had and received, even If the
plaintiffs had an action against the County Col
lectOr. Ibid, 60S)
AS to the third proposition that the payments
were received by the defendant in ignorance OF
the law Ignorance OF the law Is no excuse. Inc
defendant received the illegal fee from an agent
who was unauthorized to pay them The Auditor,
the Collector and the Justice derived their powers
from the Legislature, and each is presumed to
know the limit of the powers possessed by the
others. Ibid, COZ.
1t must be presumed that the defendant knew
that the Auditor was acting ultra wires when he
approved these bills. As TO the fourth proposition,
that the defendant was not answerable to the
plaintiffs fel the moneys handed to him by the Col
ectOr to be paid over to the Constable; The JUS
tice received the moneys claimed to be due the
constables from the collector of the county to be,
by said Justice, paid to the several constables.
plaintiffs claim that they should be reimbursed by
the defendant for all sums paid by the Collector to
the defendant for the said cOnstabes in excess of
what they were entitled to by law. The defendant
a mere custodian of the money handed him by
the collector for the purpose of paving the same
to the constables. In other words, he was simply
the medium through which the said moneys were
conveyed from the collector to the various consta
bles, and under none of the circumstances Of the
can the defendant be held liable for the mere
conveyance, from the collector of these moneys to
the constables in Question
AS to the three or four instances in which war
rants were issued and in which the defendant
claims the same fees as in criminal cases. the con-
tention of the defendant is uDsound for the reason
that no matter on what accusation the prisoners
were arrested by complaint and warrantdthe hear
ing resulted in convictions under the seventh Sec
tion of the vice and immortality act, and such be-
ing the result of the hearings the defendant here
would only be entitled to such fees as would be al
lowed by law in that class of cases. namely twenty
five cents to the Justice, and all moneys paid to
the defendant in excess OF that amOunG by the
county collector were Illegal ana the plalntHs are
entitled to recover the same back from this defend
ant. To entitle justice and constable to fees to
be paid out of the funds of the county for their
services in taking a complaint issuing a warrant
and making arrest, in criminal cases, the APP
prova of the Prosecutor of the Pleas must first be
had Up. L. $50 343). The bills in question were
not so approved, and therefore the justice is not
entitled to the same.
Let Judgment be entered in accordance with
the above views.
In the case OF the Board of Chosen Freeholders
OF Burlington county V. John o. Hudson, involving
the same questions, which case, by agreement Of
counsel, was to abide the decision of the Court in
the above suit, let judgment be entered in accord
ance with the views above stated