Vilas County news. [volume] (Eagle River, Vilas County, Wis.) 1896-1927, 1906-03-26

Chapter III or Tue Laws Oh 1871 also
provides how the salary of the sher II,
under sheriff and deputy sheritfs may
be fixed, etc, but in no manner chapter
II. 5 section 694A insofar as it effects
the office Of beriff in this county under
The presedt system of part salary and
part fees.
That part of Section GOA Except for
the keeping and maintaining prisoners
in the county Jail" is synonymous with
the terms used 10 section 1917 and re,
fers to the maintainance Oh ces5ary
support and keepil If prisoners
Parsons vs.. " aukeSha County. 50
Wis, .SS.
In Boil VS.. Fon du Lad County, 50
Wis, 433, whore the Board Of super
visors hid ahOpled II resolution fixing
he board OF priaOnere, III the county
iall at So 10 per week for each prisoners
md the sheriff had presented 10 oa id
board Il C aim for boar OF prisoners at
So 81 per week, the Supreme Court
there said hat The county board and
sheriff may mBke contract Il 10 WhIdt
shall be received and paid for board.
ana that this mu5tbe by agreement BE-
tween thc parties" This remark was
wholly unnecessary in deciding hat
=
the supreme Court ateS that the
amuung that the sheriff cen re>Over Is
strictly limited to what WAS actually
ana necessarily expended by the sheriff
Tor furnishing, preparing aud serving
Uhe proper fO, d. We do tOt think heee
words III Bell vs. Fnn du Lac County is
The law 10 Ga; The right OF the coun
~ bOHrdIu make Il contract Is lmlt"d
Ia hIA
statutes authorize q contract To be made
either ineXpree5 general terms, hN
tue county board, the county board has
no authority Wherever 10 make such ii
contract.
In Doty VS. SauX County, 90 Wis,
t02, the Supreme Court says; 'Jhla
Conrt has rrqueatrdly held that TIL
county j. liable TO the sheLid for what
ever the proper board Of persons con
iued in the count JUL may ACT uaily
coct, includIn the cost of materials used
for food aud Tor preparing and serving
the same, bet without any allowance
for the sheriff personal service Or 10"
prof .iils in his favor"
The case OF Dei~sner VS.. Wauke sha
COunty, 80 Wis, 5SS, is TO the same
/ effect.
| Now the contract under consideration
! provides sor nhe board Of certain prls-
Ouers at $3.50 per week, and then an
derGakes TO provide for the board OF
cerUrin other prisoners at lump sum
! 70 $1,000 % per annum Under these
| decision we have no question that such
contract is absolutely void, e nd that
all the sheriffs aud recover is the actual
cost to h!m OF boarding the prisoners,
! "the account of The keeper of su0h JtlI
! having been first allowed bv the county
! board" and ~ oLh z or great n sum.
! SEQ I'D All sums That tave been
| paid TO the sheriff uuIer the provisions
! gt this contract. eau be recovered fr,
| he sheriff b. the cOuuCA board, and II
! the county board refuses TO bring such
! an action then any tax pay er eau bring
JheactiOn and recover such sums.
Ia Kincher vs. Peterson, lii Wis.
69, Justice Marseall in delivering the
opinion on this point SAYS IF he
THAT the tax payer is not APPLE to act
before the none, has passp from he
public treasury to illegal private poss-
essjou. such money neverGhe less will
remBin imdrcs5eG with the publc own
ership The title thereto will by no
means charge merely by being illegally
taken from the possess on OF the proper
custodian thereof and passed over one
who has no right thereto. As this
Court has had occasion TO remark, a
person cannot rest SECURE In the enjoy
ment of money merely vpon the ground
that he has obtained possession OF II
from the public treasury Ii be does
not obtain possession rightfully, the
courts will furnish injured taxpayers u
remedy where the mischief cannot
otherwise be remedied, if they season
ably move ia the matter. That has
been, probably, as thoroughly intrench-
ed in the jrisdiction OF this state as any
principal can well be.
So that ali money paid to the sheriff
unded this contract can undoubtedly be
recovered from him.
To the sane effect see also Douglas
Gov Sommers, l2o Wis, 424: North
ern Trust Co vs. Snyder 113 Wis. 5l6-
554
THIRD. The question is also asked
as 10 whether the salary providing for
the sh, riff covers work in The county,
atho in performing that work Tie
| sheriff may for conye niepce or other