Eagle River review. [volume] (Eagle River, Wis.) 1890-1927, 1906-03-30
ROYAL BAKING POWDER CO., NEW YORK.

that he has obtained possession of it
frOm the public treasury, II he does
not obtain possession rightfully, the
courts will furnish injured taxpayers a
remedy where the mischief cannot
otherwise be remedied, if they season
ably move in the matter. That has
been, probablp, as thoroughly intrench-
ed in the jrisdiction of this state as any
principal can we'll be-"
So that ali money paid to the sheriff
under this contract can undOu btedly be
recovered from him.
To the sane effect see also Douglas
Co. VS.. Sommers, 12O Wis, 424; North
ern Trust Co. VS.. Snyder 113 Wis. 5l6-
554.
THIRD. The question is also asked
as to whether the salary providing for
the sheriff covers work in the county,
altho in performing that work the
sheriff may for convenience or other
wise go out of the county. The answer
is Eyes"
The statute is clear on this question
of construction about it. Section 694a
| heretofore quote expressly says: the
saTary so fixed shall be in lieu of all fees
compensation for services rendered
| within the limits of such comfy by the
I
sheriff for which such county would be
! liable if no srlary was established"
| Ia Northern Trust Company VS.. Sny-
| dor I13 Wis SIC 554, all such expenses
| as tn s were expressly covered and held
to be included within the salary. The
same is true Of all chBrges for assist
auce and Wsrk of his own team in con
veying prisoners McCumber VS. Wan
l1esha County, 81 Wis, 443-444. And
alse for any charges for janiter. Hart
we'll vs.. Supervisors Of Waukes ha equity
10 Wis. BIZ. The ianitOr appointed by
the sheriff is simply deputy.
Ia parsOn VS.. Waukesha County, 81
| Wis 2S8, it is expressly held that I'M
der the salary system the cOento Wauld
not be liable for livery hire in sobp0ena-
ing witnesses, or for car fare and livery
hire ia summOuiDg a urV, or for asSlG-
tance aud conveyance in making arrests
| in criminal eases: and all cases have
held that that this salary cevers the
sheriff and his deputies, and conse
Quently no salary can be allowed to "a
ianitOr
To the same effect is Douglas County
VS. Sommers, 100 Wis, 424.
FOURTH. Another question pre-
scented is whether the County Board
has jurisdiction TO act upon calims
where they are not properly made out
and itemized, etc. Answer must be 'nO.
Section 677 r. 5. 1898 provides:
''Every person having any sech claim
against any county shall make state
ment there OF in writtinf. setting fourth
the nature of his claim and the fact uD
on which it if founded, and if the claim
be an account, the items tsereof sep
atal1y hn tlIT1n nf
time expended in the performance of
any services charged for, when no
specific fees are allowed by law, and If
the claim be for milage the statement
shall specify the date and places, so as
to show between w0at points and when
travel charged for was had and also the
purpose for which such travel was had
Such statements shall be verified by
theaffidavit of the claimant, his agent
Or attorney. and be filed with the county
clerk, and no such claim against any
county shall be &C ted upon or consider
ed by any county board unless such
settlement shrll hade been so made and
filed.
Our supreme Court has expressly
held in two late cases that where the
the claim was not made out in accord
once with his section that the county
board had no right whatever to act un-
on the claim. had no jurisdiction.
Northern Trust Company vs. SNYDER,
113 wis, SIC: Miller VS.. Crawford Coun,
ty, 100 wis, 210;
These two cases settle proposition.
and county boards should be verycare-
full and not act upon any claim which
is not made out in accordance with this
provisions and verified, because county
os<1, 1oiy in al a.
ton of this provision are very apt to
become personally liable for money so
taken out of the county treasury.
[ went over thes question with your
hulorable body quite fully the annual
meeting in December last and it is not
necessary to again go into the matter
extensively here.
FIT. Another question presented
is whether a sheriff has any right to re-
cover for his expenses and mlage or
fees in attempting to make an arrest
for trips on which no arrest was actual
ly made.
This question is also absolutely set
| tied by our Supreme court in the case
| OF Schneider vs. Waukesha County, l03
| Wis 266 The question there present
| ed was as TO whether the sheriff can
recover milage for travel in an honest
| but unsuccessful attempt to execute a
criminal warrant, and the Supreme
! court held that he could only recover
any sum whatever under the provisions
of subsection 81 of section 73l OF the
statutes of 1898, which is as follows;
when any person accused of any fell
ony shall escape pursuit without fault
or negligence of the sheriff, and the
district attorney shall certify such DUR
suit was necessary and proper. the
county board may in their discretion
allow fair compensation for the time
and necessary expenses incurred 10 snch
pursuit " The time would be at the
rate of not to exceed five collars day.
and no milage, but just the actual nee
essary expenses, and that can only oe
| dis