The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-03-30
INA.NDAMUS.DE'NIE::Dl.
in SUPREME COURT U Il
Auditor Not Empowered to Draw For.
City Sergeant's Fees.
THE PRISONERS OF THE CITY,
From Those of the State
Action for Defamation; Questions
Of Agency; Negligence; Con-
slruction of Lease.

= - Z
Supreme Court of Appeals yesterday was
quite large, and embraced some interest
ing. cases. The case which IS proDablS OF
the most importance locally IS that of
City OF Richmond US. Epps, Sergeant.
winch was appealed from the musings
Court OF this city. and IS a petition 1or q
sn-,,ft.a1r.us 10 compel the Auditor OF the
city TO draw his warrant upon the CITY
Treasurer to Pay the fees OF the CITY
Sergeant for receiving aud subsisiiiS the
prisoners in the city jail which have been
committed there for violation of the ordi-
nauces of the city.
The InantiarnGs was refused, and there
was declared 20 be no authority OF Ia"
fer the payment of fees 10 the Sergeant
for s,lcn service in the absence of an
ordnance of the city directing payment
of same
The case of Payne vs. Tancil. also
case Of local interest, appealed from ule
Law and Equity Court OF Richmond, IS an
action for defamation, and involves some
important rulinge as to the Pieaalnss
required to properly set forth words OF
On acticnabie and insulting character
The case of the Riverview Land Com
rany vs. Dance & Co, appealed from
the Corporation Court of Danv1lle- IS an
cct;ou to cecover certain moneys al
yanced by the agents for the prlncipalS,
and presents some important phases Oh
the application of the statute OF lAn'a'a-
tons.
The case of Dingee. Weinman & co. vs..
Jrnrue's administrative, which was appeal
ed from the Circuit Court of Lynchouis'
is an action for damages for ,he klinis
of Unrus. while engaged at work IN tae
mines of the company A.,
The case of King vs.. wilson, from ui7
Hastings Court of the city OF
mouth. involves the construction OF q
lease, and presents the doctrine Oh
tenancy for n term OF years.
FEES OF CITY SERGEANT
CITY of Richmond vs.. Epps, Sergeant.
Opinion by Judge Riley. Dissenting
opinion by Judge Harrison
This case was appealed from the nus.
| ings Court Of the city OF iaehmohu up o;d
| = writ of error to 4 judgment OF saio
| court in favor of the defendant in error,
| unon a petit!cn filed by the City SER
| raant for a writ of mandamus TO co!npel
| the Auditor OF this city to issue ms war
| rant upon the Treasurer for certain sums
| of money claimed by the Sergeant 10 De
| due him as jailer for receiving ana sup
| porting persons incarcerated IN tne cry
| iail for violating ordinances OF the CITY
or under y, capias pro fine for failure to
| pay fines imposed for violation OIL Tue
| said ordinances. -.
The Hastings Court awarded the writ
| of mandanus.
| It was admitted in the case that there
! was no ordinance of the city OF IIcn-
| nond authorizing the Auditor to issue ms
/ warrant for any sum Whatever 10 Tue
| Sergeant of the city for receiving ana
| supporting persons incarcerated IN Jan
I for a violat ton of the ordinances OF the
| civ but it was contenGed on behaf or
! the petitioner that section 1892 of the CODE
! of 1857 prescrbes and fixes the compeh-
sation he is to receive for said services.
| The city denied the application OF thls
| section to the case, but contended that
even if it should be held to apply thae
| his compensate should be computed
] with reference to the whole number OF
| prisoners in Jail, those placed therein
for offences committed against the com
| monwealth as we'll as those incarcer8ted
for offences against the city
Upon examina ton of that section and
the preceding sections to and Including
section 1927 it was held that they apply
only to payments out Of the State Urea
s,1ry for services rendered TO the Com
monwealth with respect to- persons whc
are charged with having violated he1
laws or been convicted therefor. 1t was
! also held that section 1011 of the Code
relating to duties and fees OF clerks anc
Commonwealth attorneys of cities belns
similar with those of the counties, anc
section 101S OF the Code. relating to duties
| and i1Ou VI City SCI Sediit'' ~
| ing such as are prescribed by the CHAR
ters of their respective cities, did moi
furnish any authority for the present
case because sergeants are not enume'
rated in section 1011, and there is no pro-
vision in the charter of the city OF Rich
mond such as IS contemplated by sec
ton 10lS.
1t was held that the two classes Of
prisoners are as distinct as the distinc
| ,;nIa ion nf the
the State and a violation of the ordi
| nances of the city, and the compensa
ton against the State or city, as the cast
| might be, should be computed "lthou
| reference to the number of persons II
Jail for the violation OF the laws of tn
one or the ordinances of the other.
In summing up the opinion for the ma
jority of the court. Judge -Riiey SAID
las no provision has been made b,
statute fixing the fees or the compensa
ton of the sergeant of a city. who is b.
virtue of his office the keeper OF its jail
| for receiving and supporting person
placed In Jail for a violation OF the ordi
nances of the city, and as the city o
Richmond has not adopted by ordinanc
the scale OF fees fixed by statute for re
ceiving and supporting persons 1ncarce
rated in Jail for the violation OF the crimi
nal laws OF the State, nor prescribed an.
! geaut for like service towards person
! placed in Jail for violation of its ordi
nances, it therefore foilows.tin accordance
| with the well-e Established rule that man
damus only lies in a case Of the natuD
where there. is a clear right to a fixe'
sum of money, or to an amount ascer
tainable by 4 mere computation, ant
where the issue of the warrant thereto
and its payment is merely a. ministeria
duty. that the petitioner is not entitled t
the writ
The Judgment of the lower court wa
reversed and the petition for mandarin
dismissed
Judge Harrison expressed the opinion
that section 35S2 was broad enough t
cover the present case, and that this uni
fornlity of compensation was intended t
be secured to the jaier touching hi
fees for State and city prisoners. ap'
that this view Of the law had been acte'
upon by the city OF Richmond through
out its history. and that 1t is not likel
that the Common Council of any city ha
ever passed any ordinance undertaking.
to prescribe such compensation. having
properly regarded the State law as con
trolling in the matter.
DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER.
| PAYNE TauciI. Opinion by JudS