Orleans County monitor. [volume] (Barton, Vt.) 1872-1953, 1906-12-24

Now in respect to the alleged
ssgraft" in the Howard items. How
ard was charged with SIS days going
to hearings, 1886. Use of own team
S136.
! AS to the item OF 1886, the commit
tee holds that Howard could have
made the same connections by start
| ing the next morning and that upon
such occasion this charge for days
work and hotel and other expenses
until the next morning were unnec-
essary and unlawful" The com nit
tee said a stage left Craftsbury st
$50 or Howard could take his own
own team and start at Z O'Clock and
make connections. The principal
criticism they had against him is that
he started the day before and charged
for it.
The federal authorities recognize
the question of going to and return
| ing from official duties thus:
By Sec. of acts approved May
2Sth, 1896, go Stat. L., 179) it was
enacted that district attorneys and
their assistants shall receive actual
and necessary travelling expenses
while absent from their respective
official residences and necessarily
employed in going to, returning from
and attending before, etc.
In; o,.1
J is his charge for S136 for his OVID
team, and that he took vouchers from
members of his family and others.
The ruling in Vermont is that bills
must be supported by vouchers, even
if given By the party directly inter
ested. Referring again to govern
ment practice, page 157 Of the in
structions TO United States marshals,
attorneys, clerks, and commissioners
issued April 1, 1904, by paragraph
479, it is provided that where q
deputy uses his own horse for team,
the amount charged mus. be reason
| able and not to exceed those usually
/ charged in the district.
| Page SO, instructions To the United
States marshal, etc; by paragraph
407 it is provided that receipts shall
not be required for the deputy's own
horse or team.
! The precedents in Vermont in the
matter of Darling, trustee of the
state hospital, and Gates, highway
commissioner, vouchers were given
and signed by themselves for the use
of their own team, as were required
! of them.
| 1t is interesting TO note what the
authorities say on the question of
''dayf'
The word "dayn when used in a
| contract or statute unless it is
restricted means the whole "a hours.
Miner V. Goodyear, 81 Conn. no.
The term "dayn as used in con
tract providing for payment of SO
much day, means working day.
McClosky v Kasterman, 10 L. r. A.
1855.
Ordinarily day is the space of time
which elapses while the earth makes
a complete revolution on its axis, but
artfcially it is the time between the
rising and setting of the sun.
And in an act, providing that the
commissioners of insanity shall be
allowed at the rate of SO per day
each, for the time actually employed
in the duties of their Office, the term
is not to be so construed, and the
full compensation whenever they
perform services on a given day,
regardless of the numo Der of hours
spent in such employment.
White v. Dallas Co., 81 Iowa 53.
The law does not recognize frac-
tions of days and when it provides a
per diem compensation for the time
necessa riiy devoted to the duties OF
an office, the officer is entitled TO his
daily compensation for each day on
which it becomes necessary for him
to perform any substantial official
service, if he does perform the same
regardless of the tims coupled in lis
, performance.
, 10 Col, page II.
Where the compensation of the
porters of the senate is fixed by Law
) at four dollars per day, the wore
, "day" covers whatever period O
twentyfour hours the senate chooses
to remain in session. They are no
paid by the amount of work which
they do, but by the day, and we think
t it is too clear for discussion that th.
S word stday" as used in the statut,
;. covers whatever period of the TWEEN
ty-four hours the legislators choos.
to remain in session.
!. n COL, page 474 475.