Eagle River review. [volume] (Eagle River, Wis.) 1890-1927, 1906-03-30
{ Continued from last week J

10 contract. see S6CUIOu I-O duIt fJoO'
The statute, section 4947, provides
as follows: "All charges for maintain
ing convicts who have been sentenced
to confinement in the States Prison,
and the expense of maintaining per-
sons charged with offences and Only
committed for trial. and of those who
are confined in the county Jail or who
NAV be committed for trial. and of
those who are confined in the county
Jail or who may be committed for the
payment of any fines and expenses
for safe keeping, shall be paid out of
county treasury. the accounts Of the
keeper of such jail having been first al =
lowed by the county board: provided
that no sheriff or jailer shall receive,
and no county shall allow any compen-
sation whatever for keeping or board
ing any tramp or vagrant in the county
Jail unless such tramp or Vagrant shall
have been committed thereto Pursuant
To law"
Section 694A provides as follows:
"Any county board may at an annual
or other meeting, by resolution TO be
entered on their records, change the
method prescribed by law for cOmpen-
setting the sheriff for all services per-
formed by him within the county for
which the county is liable to pay.
When such resolution shall have been
adopted, it shall be the duty Of such
board. at their annual meeting proceed
ING the election Of county officers to
fix a salary for the sheriff ia the same
manner as the amount OF salaries pay
able 10 ether county officers are reQulr-
ed to be fixed The salary SO fixed shall
be in lieu Of all fees and COMPENSATION
for service rehQered within the limits
of suoh county by the sheriff, the under
sheriff and deputy sherifts, for which
such county would be liable if no sal
AIRY established, except for keeping and
maintaining prisoners in tie county
lail. B."
Chapter 217 of the Laws of 1901 also
provides how the salary Of the sheriff,
under-sheriff and deputy sheriffs may
be fixed. etc, but in no manner chapter
l.. 5. section COLA insofar as it effects
the Office of sheriff in this county under
the prescott system of part salary and
part fees.
That part of Section COLA except for
the keeping and maintaining prisoners
in the county jail' is Synonymous with
the terms used in section 1917 and re,
fers to the maintainance OIL necessary
support and keeping of prisoners.
Parsons VS. Waukesha County. 50
Wis, GSS.
In Bell VS. Fon du Lad County, SO
Wis 1873. where the Board of Super
visors he'd adopted a resolution fixing
the board of prisonere, in the county
Jail at So 90 per week for each prisoners
and the sheriff had presented 10 said
board claim for board of prisoners at
50 80 per week, the Supreme Court
there said that 1.-The county board and
sheriff may make a contract as to what
shall be received and paid for board,
and that this mustbe by agreement be-
tween the parties" This remark was
wholly unnecessary in deciding that
case: and in the same case on page $50
the Supreme Court states that the
amount that the sheriff cen resover is
strictly limited to what was actually
and necessarily expended by the sheriff
for furnishing. preparing and serving
the proper food. We do not think these
words in Bell VS.. Fnn du Lac County is
the law to-day; The right of the cOun-
ty boBrdto make a contract Is limited
strictly to the statue, and unless the
statutes authorize contract TO be made
either ineXpress or general terms, by
the county board, the county board has
no authority Wherever to make such
contract.
To Doty VS.. Saux County, SO Wis,
1872, the Supreme Court says; This
Court has requestedly held that the
county is liable to the sheLiH for what
ever the proper board of persons con-
fined in the county JUL may actually
coct, includin the cost of materials used
for food and for preparing and serving
the same, bet without any allowance
for the sheriff personal service or for
profits in his favor"
The case OF Deissner VS.. Waukesha
County, % Wis, 5SS, is to the same
effect
Now the contract under consideration
provides s0r nhe board of certain pris
oners at S4.60 per week, and then UNI
dertakes to provide for the board of
certrin other prisoners at a lump sum
TO $1,000. % per annum Under these
decision we have no question that such
a contract is absolutely void and that
all the sheritfs and recover is the actual
cost to him of boarding the prisoners.
THE account of the keeper of suoh jail
having been first allowed by the county
bo4rdn. and no other or greater sum.
SECO I'd All sums that tave been
paid 10 the sheriff under the provisions
CT this contract. can be recovered from
the sheriff by the countA board, and if
the county board refuses to bring such
an action then any tax payer can bring
gheaction and recover such sums.
= In Kincher vs. Peterson, HI Wis.
6S Justice Marseall in delivering the
opinion on this point says IF he
THAT the tax payer is not APPLE to act
before the money has passp from The
public treasury to illegal private poss-
essiou. such money nevertheless Will
remBin imdressed with the public own
ership The title thereto will by no
means charge merely by being illegally
taken from the possession of the proper
custodian thereof and passed over one
who has no right thereto. As this