Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1906-12-28
CONSTABLE Of COURT
Judge Killitt Makes Interesting Rul-
ing at Wauseon.
From B. G. Sentinel

During the recent campaign the
Democratic press fried hard to belit-
tie Deputy Sheriff Roach and pre-
vent his election by setting up the
claim that he had taken illegal fees
as court constable, this having been
the ruling of the State Examiners.
1t will therefore be interesting to
read the following from the Democrat
ic Expositor, of Wauseon, Fulton Co.,
giving decision on the very ques-
tion by Judge Killitts, who is consid-
cred one of tn best judges in the en-
tire state and whose decision shows
that officials may easily err in the
Interpretation of the law when able
lawyers do. The decision may be re-
versed but nevertheless, coming from
Judge Killitts, it has great weight.
Here is what the paper says:
TIE case of Fulton county against
A. f. Shaffer to recover illegal fees
purported to have been drawn by the
defendant while acting as court con.
stable (the same having been report
ed by Dover and Kloeb, members of
the state bureau of accountants) was
taken up and by agreement of council
the same was argued and submitted
to the court for an Interpretation of
the law. Judge Killitts' ruling was
in favor of the defendant which will
throw the cost on the county. The
Judge in giving his opinion in the
case said in part:
The law providing for an annual in
spection of county officers is saluta-
ry one, but its operations give rise to
unfortunate results and at times pla-
ces honest people in very embarras-
sing position. The public generally
takes n report as practically final
Judgment conclusive against all par.
ties affected, forgetting that the ex'
aminers las in this case, are not even
lawyers, and have no special qualif-
cations to pass upon the uncertain
scope and meaning of our intricate
and often contradictory statutes re
lating to fees. The result is that the
popular clamor often ascribes dishon
esty to those who have done abso
lutely nothing to forfeit public conf
dence.
The fact is that the only function
of these examinations and reports il
TO raise an issue upon debatable ques
tions, to the end that uniformity Of
construction of the laws involved
may be had over the state. The reports
in fact, are so much less than conclu
sive findings, that they bind nobody
dations to the prosecuting attorney
who is charged with the duty of act
ing in behalf of the county treasury
directing his attention to matters Of
inquiry and he may very properly ig
more them, and should in fact ignore
them, if they are at variance will
his own honest views of the law.
In the particular case at bar the
criticism is rather more against tht
court. appointing Mr.. Shaffer Court
Constable than against him for there
is no question that he acted as sucf
officer evey day for which he drew
compensation under an appoint
ment to such position from the court
and the issue is then, practically, whc
was the better competent to construe
the law, the court appointing the de
fendant, or the non-lawyer examiners
who say that he could not be legally
appointed court constable while fill
ing the Office Of deputy sheriff.
The court after reviewing every
question at issue and referring to sew
eral sections of law an different au
thorities, concluded by saying:
That the same person may at the
same time hold both of these posi-
tions, neither Of which is public
Office as that term is known to the
law, and that such incumbent may
lawfully receive the emoluments pc
culiar to each, provided he be mo-
paid twice for the same services, ant
that in this case, the judgment be fol
the defendant, that his drafts from
the county treasury under the circum
stances shown in the agreed state
ment of facts were entirely Lawful
and that the costs of this action b'
paid out of thecounty treasury.
paid out in the county treasury.