The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1898-01-04

does not anywhere Impose any per-
sonal pecunIary liability for the pur-
chase OF things necessary 10. the man
agement OF the jail.
In examining the laws OF The various
states upon the question forming the
basis OF this discussion, / find that the
laws OF Our sister state. Yirginln, TO be
almost exactly like the lawa OF Our
own state, but In neither OF these two
states DO l find that any question arls-
Ing under these laws, has ever ut any
time found Its way Into tho supreme
court. In the state Of Indiana. how
ever, ! found the laws governing tlls
matter 60 analogous TO those. governing
the same subject matter In our own
state as to preserve the legal tenor and
effect OF our laws almost In entirety.
The ONLY difference that ] have been
able 10 notice Is that tho Indiana stat
uteS do not contain any special pro.
vision which would render the board OF
county commissioners liable for any ex-
penditurcs which the jallcr might entail
In supplying the Jail With fuel. unless
the said board might be held liable UNI
der tho general law requiring the
boards OF tho various counties TO estab-
llsh jaiis. and which Is as follows:
There shall be established and kept
II every county, BY the authority Of
the board OF county commissioners, and
at the expense of the county. q prison
for the safe keeping OF prisoners law
fully committed" !. r. p. col.
This, statue has been passed upon BIZ
the supreln court, In the case OF The
Board OF County Commissioner We.
Reissncr, in tho 5sth Indiana Reports,
page. c6l. Reissner. the sheriff OF the
county OF Marion, brought suit against
the board to recover the value Of GER
tain coal purchased by the plaintiff as
sheriff OF tho county for the use OF the
jail thereof. necessary therefore and
used therin during the year 1876. Judg-
ment for the plaintiff by the court be-
low. and from which Judgment the dc.
PENDANTS appealed to the supreme court
OF the state. Held by the court that a
county is liable 10 Its sheriff for tho
value of fuel furnished by him. and
necessary for the county jail, and the
county board of commissioners is au-
thorized TO allow him under section IL.
l II. S., page 352, OF the act providing
for the organization OF the county
boards. The court also holds that the
statues making allowances to the shcr-
IN OF n stated annual compensation. or
OF special fees per diem, for the board
OF prisoners. do not effect the county's
responsibility for expenditures made by
the sheriff for coal, to be used In con-
uection with said nil.
In the case % Bynum VS.. Board OF
County Commissioners. 100 Ind. %. the
court held that for fuel, articles OF
property brought for the county, and
necessary for the use OF the jail, the
sheriff Is entitled to an allowance. All
that the officer can claim under existing
laws Is that when lie buys property for
the county. for use in the all. he Is en-
titled 20 he reimbursed. The same
opinion was also expressed In the &c IN
diana, page 5RS. A case in Z Indiana,
page 72l, so far as the question here in
volved relate TO the county recorder, Is
also In point.
In view OF the foregoing considcra-
tons lam therefore constrained "a
hold that the county OF Ohio is Liable
to the sheriff for expenditures made by
him In the purchase o; beds and bed
diEg necessary and for use In the Ohio
county Jail.
Lawyers who heard the opinion read
and others vino looked over 8. before,
state That IL is IN able paper and covers
the case completely and draws the
proper conclusion.
The prosecuting attorney Is the reSu-,
larly constituted legal advisor OF the
board, so when Chairman Fritz, Of the
committee on court house and Jail, came
forward with u counter opinion which he
secured from Mr.. w. P. Hubbard, there
was some surprise. The Hubbard opln-
Ion is very short and cites just one Sec
tlon of the state code. without entering
into the various contingent sections re-
viewed by the prosecuting attorney. The
conclusion drawn by Mr.. Hubbard is
that the bedding must be bought by the
sheriff.
On motion. both opinions were received
by the board. Then Mr.. Speidei moved
that the report from the prosecuting at
torney be adopted. This brought on a
fierce discussion in which Chairman
Fritz. OF the court house and Jail COM
mittec, became excited and referred 10
the sheriff In language not at all COM
plimentary. Finally the Spc!del motion
was nut to an aye and nav vote. which
resulted in its defeat, The vote:
Ayc-SpeIdcl, Hess. Kin]dcIberrer.
total, ..
Noes-Burkett. Faris, Fritz. Hara. Nc.
Gregor: total, s.
Not votins-Glass and TYSON.
The following committee hills vera ~.
80