The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-10-05
BRIEF In SHILLING CASE
MATTER Is NOW BEING FOUGHT IN
THE SUPREME COURT.
Suit Based ON Former Recorders Al
legged Failure to Report Fees
Cases i'm County Courts.

A brief was filed in the Supreme Court
yesterday on behalf of ex-Countv Recorder
William Z. Shilling and his bondsmen-Ben-
Jamin Franklin, George Merritt and Sam
uel h. Perkins-in their appeal from a
judgment of the Marion Circuit Court for
KUN and costs assessed against them in
favor of the State Of Indiana on the rela-
ton OF the commissioners Of Marion coun-
ty. The attorneys for the commissioners
are Harding & Hovey and Charles S. Wilt
sic.
shilling was recorder of Marion county
from Nov. IA. 1894. 10 Nov. II, 1898, and the
action In which the judgment was recovered
against him was brought for alleged fail
ure 10 make the report required by law and
to pay the amount due from him into the
county treasury.
Shilling and his bondsmen demurred to
the commissioners complaint on the ground
that it should have made Edwin b. Pugh,
prosecuting attorney, a plaintiff, and the
further ground that the commissioner had
no legal right to sue. The Marion Circuit
Court overruled this demurrer and the de-
PENDANTS, declined TO plead further. where
upon judgment was entered against them
and they sued out an appeal 10 the Supreme
Court.
The attorneys for Shilling argue that the
oNAN ~ O4 GCCAlOll ID VI lHC ltC anu
salary law, which, as originally passed in
1891. required suit for fees to be brought
by the prosecuting attorney. This section
was amended i'm 1898 TO make the commits
sioners bring such suit, but in 1896, in a
general fee and salary law, the section In
its original form was re-enacted. There
fore, sa" the attorneys, the suit should
have been brought by Mr.. Pugh.
Mr.. Shilling's attorneys assert that no fee
and salary law in Indiana has ever given
the right to sue a county officer on his
bond, and they further say that the right
of the county to claim fees was a new
right, conferred By statute and not by COM
mon law or equity, their collection must be
brought about in exactly the way pre-
scribed by the statute and in no other way.
The attorneys cite the case Of State VS..
Boice TO show that the fee and salary law
of 1891 was unconstitutional and void as
TO county recorders, auditors and treasur-
ers, by reason of its failure to fix the SAL
Continuing on this line Mr.. Shilling's at
torneys say: While the act of 1898. amend
atOry of Section 80 of the act of 1891, was
held constitutional by a majority opinion
of this court in Walsh VS.. State, We again
respectfully submit that an act to amend
a law which is invalid from any cause is
also an invalid and void law"
Section 12 of the fee and salary law of
1895 is attacked on the ground that ii con-
travenes Section IA of the bill of rights,
which provides that mo person shall be put
in Jeopardy twice for the same offense.'
Counsel say that Section 132 Furnishes the
offending county recorder by imposing a
penalty and Section 1875 by imposing a fine,
thus conflicting with the section Of the
bill of rights already quoted. The Shilling
case is similar to the actions instituted
against eX-COunty Treasurer Sterling X.
Holt and County Treasurer William II.
Schmidt, and its decision by the Supreme
Court is awaited with much local interest.