Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1908-04-11
". f. SHIMMIN LOSES
CASE AGAINST COUNTY
Important Decision Rendered by
Judge Clementson.
Says Shimmin Has Received More Than
Should Legally be Charged
For Services Rendered.


county circuit court W. E. Shimipm
who was a justice of the peace OF
this city, brought an action against
the county for a balance alleged TO
be due for services rendered and
which had been disallowed and de-
Quoted from his bill by the county
board last fall.
At the conclusion OF the suit the
matter was taken under advisement
by Judge Clementson, who on
Wednesday of this week rendered
decision adverse to Mr.. Shlmmin.
The Judge also declares in his de-
cision that the county board allowed
even more than was due him A
large proportion of the charges in
Mr.. Shimmln's bill grew out of the
action commonly known as 1.-The
tramp cases." a detailed statement
concerning which appeared Iii the
Herald several weeks ago. The
Judges decision in full is as follows:
"The plaintiff, who was justice of the
peace. appeals from a disallowance by the
County Board. The total of his claim
against the county for fees as justice was
S230.65. OF this the county board dis
allowed $1,000 allowing him S159.75 for
which he received an order on the county
treasurer The amount In controversy
in this case is small, but as this decision
may have bearing on all claims of JUS
tees hereafter made in this circuit have
given to the case careful consideration.
1t does not appear what particular items
of the plaintiffs bill were disallowed In
whole or In part, and therefore, l nee
essarily have had to examine every charge
made in the plaintiffs claim.
"The county board in passing upon
claims presented to it for allowance is
limited by the statute. 1t can allow to
officers for fees or services no more than
the statutes prescribe. If it should allow
more, the one receiving the excess has no
lawful right to retain it. and it may be
recovered back from him at suit of the
county. or by a suit brought by a tax
payer In behalf of the county. St, CroiX
County VS. Webster, Ill Wis. go. 1t
was said by the Court In that case on page
273: "a public officer takes his office cum
Onere with the burdenl. and all services
performed by him within the 81 ope of his
official duties, or which are voluntarily
performed as such officer. are covered by
his salary or compensation as fixed by
law" This decision is but a re-state-
ment Of the doctrine announced by our
supreme court as early as 1861 In the case
of Jones vs.. Supervisors ofGrant County,
II Wis. SIS.
'The claim filed by the plaintiff for
allowance by the county board consisted
of 10 items. FOrty-five of these were for
justices fees In tramp cases; were for
fees III other criminal cases; one was for
services for investigating, at the request
of the district attorney, a death by
drowning in order to determine whether
an inquest should be held; and one was
for making the statement to the county
clerk required by Section go r. S. In
addition to the items in his general claim
the plaintiff filed with the county clerk a
statement for each case In which fees were
claimed, which statement set forth par
ticularly the fees of the justice In that
case which the county board was asked to
allow. These special statements for each
case were upon blanks furnished by the
county clerk to justices of the peace.
This blank form bears the heading, "Bill
of Costs. State of Wisconsin -- Grant
County In Justice Court. and was in
tended to cover all the fees for which the
county might be liable to justice of the
peace in a criminal or other action. This
blank has been in use in this county for
a great many years. Who originated it
and by what authority it was prepared L
donot know. AS it was furnished by the
county a Justice might well assume that
he might properly follow it in making out
his claim, but it was never entirely COR
rect and by recent changes In the law is
less so now than before. There are three
items in it that should be stricken out
They read as follows: 'Folios docket
record. Making return - folios. ,
- folios report of witnesses and jurors
"There is no provision of the statute
that gives the right to a justice of the
peace to charge for the fOlios In his docket
The p cents for docketing prescribed by
Section 3774 r.. s. covers all that he can
charge for docketing except where in that
section he is allowed certain additional
fees for particular entries made In the
docket For instance, he is allowed 25
cents for entering a judgment, % cents
for each adjournemnt entered, % cents
for receiving and entering a verdict, Il
cents for entering satisfaction of judg-
ment, and for entering an amicable action
without process u cents When the
statute provides that the feefor docketing
shall be p cents, and also gives these
special fees for particular entries made in
the docket. it would require express pro
vision in the statute that the justice
should also be paid by the folio for all
that is written in the docket to warrant
such a charge. But the statute contains
no such provision, nor any language that
can reasonably be held to imply that the
justice shall be paid for the docketing by
the folio. The clause of said section
1874 relied upon by the plaintiff as
warranting this charge is this: For
drawing an affidavit IN attachment, re-
pleevln or garnishee, % cents; and for any
other affidavit or other paper drawn by