The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1908-09-03
ILLEGAL
Was Allowance Of Fees
by Commissioners in
Bank Gases
UNDER LATE DECISION

On Monday, August gath, the board
of commissioners OF Stark county, al
lowed bill of $12O1.70 to Columbi
ana county, as a recompense to that
county for the expenses incurred by
the three trials of Corwin Bachtel,
who was connected with the State
bank when it failed in Canton several
years ago According 10 the manner
in which some of the best legal au-
thority in the city interprets the Ohio
state statutes, the allowing of this
bill was illegal and that the only ac-
tion for the commissioners to have
taken in the matter was to have re-
jected it.
When Bachtel was arrested in Can
ton he was taken to Lisbon, Columbi-
ana county, for trial in the United
States circuit court. The sheriff, the
prosecutor, the witnesses and others
connected with the state side, all came
in for their fees and the bill was sent
to the commissioners of Stark county.
The illegality of their action in pay
| ing the bill can hardly be questioned.
| The commissioners certainly did not
willingly depart from the course mark
ed out by the law, but their action is
probably erroneous, only from lgnor'
ance of the statutes and of recent de-
cisions handed down by the supreme
court of Ohio.
The Weekly Bulletin Of the Ohio
laws, a pamphlet devoted to the de,
cisions of the supreme court, of this
week, has something to say of the
matter. The error of the commission
ers is not new one in Ohio, and the
supreme court has been compelled to
pass judgment upon similar cases a
number of times A case of like ma
ture came up recently in Guernsey
and Noble counties. The sheriff Of
Noble county arrested man in Guern
sey county and took him to trial N
Noble county before the circuit court
The accused was acquitted and the
sheriff demanded his fee from Guern
sey county. The bill was rejected BY
the commissioners of that county anc
the case came before the court of com
mon pleas. That court ordered The
; commissioners to pay the bill, anc
then the matter went before the su
preme court. 1t held that since thC
accused was acquitted, the sheriff wa
not entitled to any fee, and the de
cision of the common pleas court wa
reversed.
The matter between the Stark coun
ty commissioners and Columbian
county now assumes a similar aspec
to the one just referred to. The syl
labus of the law is: Where there /
change of venue and the accused !
acquitted. the sheriff has no claim t
fees, under Revised Statutes 1854 a
amended SO o. l.. Z, against the coun
ty where the indictment was found
his fees in such cases being provide
for by the Revised Statute 1881" Tn
gist of the decision is that the count
where the Indictment is found is no
liable TO the payment of the fees an
that the only compensation that tn
sheriff is entitled to is that provide
for in Revised Statute 1881, whic
makes an allowance TO the sheriff frol
the treasury of the county where tn
trial is had. The supreme court ha
upheld the action Of several board
of county commissioners in rejectin
! such b Is, and has reversed the dec
sion of one common pleas court in tn
, matter. Should the revised law NJ
hold mod I'm this case?
7 In paying the cost of the triali
the Stark county commissioners allow
ed the bills of all persons connccte
: with the state side of the case. Will
: the law mentions only the sheriff /
e handing down it's decision. 1t is tn
4 opinion of some of the best lawyers
S the Stark county bar, that the sam
= decision would apply in the case
< the prosecutor and the witnesses.