Evening journal., 1903-06-12
TWO DECISIONS
FOR LEVY COURT
Judges Rule That Judgment
on Donahoe's Bonds Must
Stand
DECIDES AGAINST THE EI- SHERIFF
Former Sheriff Mcdaniel Cannot Col.
leet Profits He Would Have Made on
the Board of Prisoners-Divorees
Granted.

Granted.
In the Superior Court this morning
Chief Justice Lore announced that the
court discharged the rule in the case
Of the American Bond and Surety Com
pany against the Levy Court and that
1t did not consider it was a jurisdie-
tional matter. 1t was a rule to show
cause why Judgment entered on
the bond of John =. Donahoe, former
Adams tax collector, should not be va
Gated Robert IL. Richards and Walter
ii. dayes represented the bond COM
pany and Donahoe, and Horace q.
Knowles the Levy Court.
The ulaintiff is on the bond of Dona-
hoe for $4,000 and as he made no set
tlement with the Levy Court Judgment
was entered on the bond Attorneys for
the oiaintiff claimed that the actual
debt was not set out, and that the en-
tering OF the judgment was therefore
Irregular. The court however, decided
otherwise.
Walter IL. Hayes, of counsel FOR the
plaintiff, asked to have an exception
noted. but it was refused by the court
Henry c. Conrad filed exceptions to
the finding of the commissioner IN the
divorce case Of Edward Ruth vs.. Alice
Ruth.
William $. Hilles, counsel for the
plaintiff in the case of Cesire Ferrari
VS.. Hughes Bros. & Bangs. was grant
ed leave to amend his demurrer c.
L. Ward is counsel for the defendant.
The case of ex-sherin Samuel A.
Mcdaniel VS. the Levy Court next came
up for argument on case stateO. Rob-
ert G. Harman and William IL. Heald
represented Mcdaniel and Horace G.
Knowles represented the Levy Court
1ne question is whether Mcdaniel
should be paid the profits he would
have made on the board of prisoners
between the time they We're removed
/ from the jail to the workhouse and the
end OF his term as sheriff, about four-
teen months. The amount involved is
nearly $4,000.
II was while Mcdaniel was IN Office
that the sherifrs salary was fixed at
$1,000 per year and $4,000 additional
for deputies. Before that the sheriffs
office paid fees, and he also recei, ed
so much for boarding prisoners at the
county jail.
Mr.. Harman argued at length for the
plaintiff. He contended that the salary
act was passed after the sheriff was
elected and entered upon the duties Of
his office, and under section 4 of the
/ Delaware Constitution, and wars there
fore unconstitutional Section 4 reads
as follows: NO law shall extend the
term of any public officer or diminish
his salary or emoluments after his
election or appointment"
Mr. Harman also cited what he claim
ed was parallel case in Schuylkill
county, Pennsylvania. He said an act
was passed in 1876 to the hfect that
when the county contained 10000
population the sheriff would receive a
salary instead Of fees. In 1890 the coun-
ty reached 100000, and the sheriff. who
was in office at the time took the case
to court. The court decided that the
act of 1876 did not apply to the sherims
Office at the time of his election.
Before Mr.. Harman had completed
his argument the court stated that the
question had practically been settled in
the previous argument when Mcdaniel
made the attempt 10 hold the prison.
ers, and decided against the plaintiff.
The case will probably be appealed.