Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1902-11-09
AT TER The AUDITOR,
ELIZABETH CITY SHERIFF WILL
SEEK TO MANDAnUs COL. MARYE.
DISAGREE ABOUT AN ACCOUNT.
Latter Says the Country Omcial Has
No Right to Charge Certain Fees
Controversy Involves Legal stEni-
acance of the Word "Day.o

HAMPTON, VA, November s-(Spe-
cial)-Colonel Morton Marye. Auditor OF
the State Of Virginia, was to-day served
with notice, informing him that on
November 18th q motion win be made be-
| fore the Virginia Court of Appeals for
a mandamus compelling him to pay to
Sheriff r. K. Curtis certain bill for
the month of April last, allowed by the
Eliza beth City County Court.
The papers in the case were sent to
the City Sergeant of Richmond this morn
ing. and it is probable that Colonel
| Marye was Immediately served with the
documents. The outcome of the petition
throughout the State with the keenest
interest, as the case is brought to force
the Auditor to settle certain bills pre-
sented by the Sheriff to the County Court
and ordered paid, but which the Auditor
emphatically declines to obey.
The Court of Appeals will be asked to
Slarye to pay Sheriff Curtis the sum OF
$l:S.25. the amount allowed him by the
County Court for keeping the State prison.
ers, and as Sheriff of the county for
| involved in the suit is between $500 ana
So 600, the salary of the Sheriff for the past
twelve or fourteen months, which Colonel
Marys has held up and rsfrzsd TO Ray
The trouble between Sheriff Curtis ana
Colonel Marye is Of long standing. Col
onel Marye has for some time refused 70
pay the bills presented by the Sheriff,
though each of them had been previously
passed upon and audited by the. Judge
Of the County Court, who, according 70
his official oat tn. found each and every one
of them absolutely correct. The bone OF
contention, however, has been this: Col
onel Marye claims that the Sheriff mas
no right to charge certain ICES tor me me
other hand, Sheriff Curtis contends that,
as the County Court has passed upon
the bills, it does not come. within the
pute them. It is contended that Colonel
Marye has nothing to do with auditing
bills after they have been allowed py
the proper courts, and that when he does
Sc he places himself in contempt of such
court.
WHAT, IS A LEGAL DAY?
The dispute has arisen over what y c co, ,s
Curtis in his bills tic to the court charges
for two days if q prisoner is committed
to jail in the afternoon of one Gay. and
dismissed from the custody Oh the 5all
the next afternoon, or even the next
morning. Colonel Marye, it is understood,
contends that twenty-four hours censt1-
tutes day, and he therefore refuses
charged in the accounts. The County
Court says the Sheriff has the right 20
charge for two days. while the Auditor
says he has not the rlght , c,cr c1rEn
III
When the gamblers were committed 10
Jail in Richmond they were allowed their
freedom at midnight. although, 1t Is re,
ported, that they were committed to Jail
late in the afternoon of that day. TINS,
the Sheriff's attorney contends, shows
that day ends with the hour of Il o'clock
midnight.
AUTHORITIES CITED.
The brief cites a number Of authorities
to substantiate the contention that Col
one1 Marye has no authority to decline
to obey the order of the court, whether
he believes the bills erroneous or not.
Mr. g. a Lewis the &C, counsel IN the e. case ahe
petition to be served on Colonel Marye TO
lticnmond this morning; He will ,o 60 to
Richmond on Tuesday. November 18th, to
appear before the Supreme Court in sup
port of the petition.
The decision OF the Supreme Court Will
have a broad bearing, as it will concern
every Sheriff in the State of Virginia,
and will settle the question! !. as 3, to VINO
tion inyolved-the Auditor or the judges
of the various courts in the State