The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1902-04-02
SHORT OF BAILIFFS
MUNICIPAL COURT HAS ONLY OWE.
ACCORDING TO JUDGE OTIS
DECISION
LATEST MOVE IN THE CASE
Court Holds That Vance and Loomis
Were Never BaiIifs de Jure,
and That Adams and Parish
Gave Up Their Rights.

instead OF having too many bailiffs, as
II was supposed was the case, the munic-
lpal court really has no baiIiffs at all
VINO are fully qualified to hold office as
such unless 1t may be John Thin, who
was appointed as a bailif, but has been
performing clerical work in the Office of
the clerk of the court
This IS the condition Of affairs as de-
termined by a decision filed by Judge
Otis yesterday in the suits of Edwin Par
ish and John Q. Adams and Robert A
Vance and James LOOMS against the
city.
These suits grew out of the appoint
ment of Vance and LOOMS by the board
of police commissioners to succeed Parish
ana Adams as bailiffs of the court and
since the time of that appointment ia
May, 1860 there has continuously been
litigation of some sort in progress to es-
tablish the claims Of the appointaes CT
the police board on one hand or the for
ner ircumbents on the other. The his
tory OF this contest has been reviewed in
extenso in h e G l o b from time to
time, and therefore the findings Of the
court will be fully comprehensive.
The court finds that Adams was a reg
ularly appointed bailiff, while Parish was
appointed as patrOlman and assigned to
duty in the court as bailiff Adams, as
bailiff, could not be removed from his
position by the police board without the
consent of the judges of the court, which
was not given. The removal of Parish by
the board was, however, effective, as ne
held his appointment merely as a patrol
man. At the time Of the appointment OF
their successors Parish and Adams both
took the position that they could not be
removed without the consent of the
judges of the court, and the judges, Oh
their part, Joined in that contention and
refrained from approving the appointment
of Vance and Loomis Parish and Adams
continued to serve in the court until Dec.
l, 1900, and Vance and Loomis also at
tended court and were ready to perform
the duties of bailifs; although they were
not permitted to do so.
After serving until Dec. l, 1900, without
receiving any salary, Parish and Adams
both retired from the office TO accept
other positions, and although the judges
had not formally approved the appoint
n.ent of Vance and Loomis. they were
permitted to do the work of bailiffs. The
court holds that Adams and Parish, in
retiring from the Office at that time, re-
signed their rights and thereafter they
could rot be de jure bailiffs. Vance and
Loomis at that time became de facto
bailiffs. but never having been-formaIly
accepted hy the judges they never Were
de jure bailiffs.
Worked for Nothing.
Parish and Adams brought suit against
the city for salaries for the month of
August 1860, and got judgment, which
was affirmed by the supreme court, and
Judge Otis now finds them to besentitled
to judgment in the sum of $210 as salary
for the months of September, October and
November, of that year, which completes
the term that they continued in the per
Torrance of the duties of bailiffs and for
which they received no pay. When the
decisions of the supreme court as TO the
August salaries were handed down Par
ish and Adams returned to the office and
resumed the work and they nave now
been serving since Dec. l, 1901, but Tor
that time the court holds they cannot re-
cover any pay.
Vance and Loomis sued to collect their
salaries for the month of August, 1900,
and the court holds that as they were
not bailiffs de jure they are not entitled to
recover.