The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1898-01-31
DUMMY WARRANTS.
The Supreme Court Says County Com
missioners are Right.
If MIR. sterling's Suit was Allowed Great
Confusion Would Ensue-An Old Time
Mater Settled.


decision has been rendered in the
case of Seth Sterling VS.. the Inhabitants
of the County of Cumberland and the de-
cision is an important one for had the
suit been decided in favor of the paintiff
il would have made the county liable
for payments in similar cases amounting
to $50, coo or more and in addition might
have been followed by another set of claims
which would have doubled this amount
had they been sustained by the courts
The action of Seth Sterling against the
inhabitants Of the county is more COM
monty known as the dummy warrant
case. Mr.. Sterling was special liquor
deputy under Sheriff Cram. In the course
of his duties he served and attempted to
serve large numbers of warrants unoer
the search and seizure process. where ne
served warrant upon the person nsmea
In it he was allowed by the county COM
missioners a fee of fifty cents but in the
cases where he got only the liquor in the
places he searched and did not serve the
warrants on the persons named IN them
or where he failed to find either the per-
sons or the liquor, the county commits
sioners refused to allow this fee OF nifty
cents, allowing the fees for travel ana
where seizures were made the Zee 1or
TRANSPORTATION together with two dollars
a day for all the days OF the plalntlIl
term as deputy including SUNDAYS: Mr.
Sterling claimed that the fees which the
=ol% oil 1xH var. f.
fuIIy his and to settle the question he re-
sorted to the courts. The commissioners
were represented by ex-County Attorney
Charles A, True and the plaintiff by
Hon. Seth L. Larrabee. The case was
submitted to the law court at the April
term. 1897, and the decision which mas
lust been rendered is in favor of the com,
missioners Of course this suit brought
nv Mr.. Sterling was test case ana mad
he won it other deputies would have
brought similar suits. 1t Is stated that II
all the claims possible had been made,
they would have represented 40, UOO war
rants and the fee of fifty cents each would
have amounted to $4,000 In addition,
claims might have been made In behalI
of the officers who assisted in serving the
warrants and If these too had been al
lowed, after another suit, the amount in
yolyed would have been doubled. These
figures look large but they are borne out
by the statements in this case. Mr..
Sterling was appointed deputy sheriff
on January s, 1891, and he served only
about q year or until January l, 1882, but
in that time he served warrants on which
his suit was based to the number of l 1850,
his bill against the county for the fees
which were IN dispute amounting TO
$780,.
While the suit was pending in the court
An amendment was procured from the
legislature to the statutes making pro-
vision which would have given the COM
missioners power to refuse the payment
of the fees for service on dummy warrants
in the future.
The rescript follows:
Cumberland, SIS.
Seth Sterling VS.. IEhbts. of the County
of Cumberland.
Rescript by Haskell, J.-Debt by dep
utv sheriff to recover of the county fees
for the service of liquor warrants disal-
lowed by the County Commissioners.
l. The action cannot be maintained.
An officer whose fees are fixed by statute
for the service % criminal process is not
n creditor OF the county, and has no right
of action therefor. His fees are payable
from the traasyrv only upon warrant OF
some judicial trlbunal or auditing board
empowered TO audit and allow such fees
and order them paid from the treasury.
II every officer, state witness, or juror,
could sue for and recover fees, regardless
of control by the court, public business
would be embarrassed, and confusion
might ensue that would be intolerable
The service Of such person is in Obedlence
TO law. and there is no contract, express
or implied, between him and the county.
Clark VS.. Clark, 90 Me. 255. In the case
at bar the law required the plalntlH TO re-
turn his fees to the Municipal court of
nd the there ended.
that court, not being authorized TO draw
warrants upon the county treasurer, could
only certify them to the county commits
stoners, whose duty it was to audit and
allow such as were legal and order them
maid from the county treasury. The law
aives no appeal from their decision, and
the plaintiff cannot create one by suit to
do would be to apply to the Supreme
Judicial court, that has supervisory juris-
f1iction over all inferior courts, for the
correction of any erroneous action of the
commissioners apart from the exercise of
Judgment and discretion.
II The plaintiff was a deputy of the
sberiff. especially charged with the en-
forcemert of the liquor law under the act
of 1879. now s. so of C. ~, r S. That
statute charges such officers with diligent
and faithful inc uiries into violations of
law and directs them to institute pro-
ceedings by promptly entering COM
plsint before a magistrate and executing.
the warrants thereon issued or by fur
nishing the County Attorney promptly
and without delay with the names Of al
legged offenders and of the witnesses. -
The statute further provides: For
services under this section sheriffs and
their deputies acting under their direc-
tions shall receive the same per diem COM
pensation as for attendance on the su-
preme Judicial court. and the same fees
for travel as for the service of warrants
in criminal cases, together with such in
cidental expenses MS are just and proper,
bills for which shall be audited by the
county commissioners and paid from the
county treasury" H.. g.
all services under this statute the COM
pensation fixed by it shall be In full satls-
faction thereof. Now what does the stat
ute require?
/. Diligent inquiry into all violations
of law
2. The institution of proceedings against
offenders by complaint to magistrates ana
the execution of process granted by them
g. Promptly informing county at1or-
pevl who offpudprs ara and giving MIN